Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:56:29 -0500 | From | Jeff Layton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] cifs: Enable Kconfig control of CIFS_DEBUG |
| |
On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:37:20 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
> Rather than havign a permanently enabled #define, allow > control over it. > > This can reduce the size of the module by ~100KB which > could be useful for embedded systems. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> > --- > fs/cifs/Kconfig | 10 +++++++++- > fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h | 5 ++++- > 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/Kconfig b/fs/cifs/Kconfig > index 2075ddf..21ff76c 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/Kconfig > +++ b/fs/cifs/Kconfig > @@ -122,9 +122,17 @@ config CIFS_ACL > Allows fetching CIFS/NTFS ACL from the server. The DACL blob > is handed over to the application/caller. > > +config CIFS_DEBUG > + bool "Enable CIFS debugging routines" > + default y > + depends on CIFS > + help > + Enabling this option adds helpful debugging messages to > + the cifs code which increases the size of the cifs module. > + If unsure, say Y. > config CIFS_DEBUG2 > bool "Enable additional CIFS debugging routines" > - depends on CIFS > + depends on CIFS_DEBUG > help > Enabling this option adds a few more debugging routines > to the cifs code which slightly increases the size of > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h b/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h > index 4d12fe4..6867a7f 100644 > --- a/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifs_debug.h > @@ -18,7 +18,10 @@ > * Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA > * > */ > -#define CIFS_DEBUG /* BB temporary */ > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_CIFS_DEBUG > +#define CIFS_DEBUG > +#endif > > #ifndef _H_CIFS_DEBUG > #define _H_CIFS_DEBUG
Looks fine, but I'd probably prefer to just get rid of CIFS_DEBUG altogether here and replace it with CONFIG_CIFS_DEBUG.
While you're at it, /proc/fs/cifs/cifsFYI should probably not be present when CONFIG_CIFS_DEBUG isn't set. Perhaps we should also disable traceSMB and its related functions too in that case?
-- Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
| |