Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:19:21 -0400 | From | "'Jason Baron'" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] dynamic debug |
| |
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:26:12AM +0900, Takashi Nishiie wrote: > Jason Baron wrote: > >Each kernel sub-system seems to have its own way of dealing with > >debugging statements. Some of these methods include 'dprintk', > >'pr_debug', 'dev_debug', 'DEBUGP'. There are also a myriad of > >ways of enabling these statements. > > I propose to replace 'Pr_debug', 'Dev_debug', and 'DEBUGP' with > kernel markers. SystemTap is used for the output of the log. > > I propose to make it to the function to output only specified > kernel markers as a log and the function in a word like LTTng of > a simple version by using the framework and kernel markers of > ftrace if the log is output by using debugfs. > > Thank you, >
perhaps markers could be used to replace 'pr_debug', 'dev_debug', and 'DEBUGP' but i have yet to see patches for that...
In a number of ways, these dynamic debug patches differ from markers:
-Markers have a pre-defined format string and arguments list, whereas debug statements have a 'printk' format -these patches are built around per-module debugging, which is largely implicit whereas markers explicitly define sets of related markers. -these patches allow 'flags' and levels to be set per-module, markers do not have this concept. -these patches are tied into a procfs control file, whereas markers are controlled by kernel modules which register handlers.
These two patchsets are really addressing different problems afaict.
thanks,
-Jason
|  |