RE: [PATCH v4 3/3] media: atomisp: Only use trace_printk if allowed

[David Laight]

From: Steven Rostedt
> Sent: 21 August 2020 01:36
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:13:00 +0800
> Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:23 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:14:12 +0800
> > > Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Technically, we could only initialize the trace_printk buffers
> > > > when the print env is switched, to avoid the build error and
> > > > unconditional boot-time warning, but I assume this printing
> > > > framework will eventually get removed when the driver moves out
> > > > of staging?
> > >
> > > Perhaps this should be converting into a trace event. Look at what bpf
> > > did for their bpf_trace_printk().
> > >
> > > The more I think about it, the less I like this series.
> >
> > To make it clear, the primary goal of this series is to get rid of
> > trace_printk sprinkled in the kernel by making sure some randconfig
> > builds fail. Since my v2, there already has been one more added (the
> > one that this patch removes), so I'd like to land 2/3 ASAP to prevent
> > even more from being added.
> >
> > Looking at your reply on 1/3, I think we are aligned on that goal? Is
> > there some other approach you'd recommend?
> >
> > Now, I'm not pretending my fixes are the best possible ones, but I
> > would much rather have the burden of converting to trace events on the
> > respective driver maintainers. (btw is there a short
> > documentation/tutorial that I could link to in these patches, to help
> > developers understand what is the recommended way now?)
> >
> 
> I like the goal, but I guess I never articulated the problem I have
> with the methodology.
> 
> trace_printk() is meant to be a debugging tool. Something that people
> can and do sprinkle all over the kernel to help them find a bug in
> areas that are called quite often (where printk() is way too slow).
> 
> The last thing I want them to deal with is adding a trace_printk() with
> their distro's config (or a config from someone that triggered the bug)
> only to have the build to fail, because they also need to add a config
> value.
> 
> I add to the Cc a few developers I know that use trace_printk() in this
> fashion. I'd like to hear their view on having to add a config option
> to make trace_printk work before they test a config that is sent to
> them.

Is it worth having three compile-time options:
1) trace_printk() ignored.
2) trace_printk() enabled.
3) trace_printk() generates a compile time error.

Normal kernel builds would ignore calls.
Either a config option or a module option (etc) would enable it.
A config option that 'rand-config' builds would turn on would
generate compile-time errors.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)