Artem B. Bityuckiy
abityuckiy at yandex.ru
Sat Nov 13 06:56:57 EST 2004
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 14:26 +0300, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
>>But the main thing why I think it would be nice to introduce macros like
>>these is that the messages will be a bit standard. I mean that all
>>errors will have the same prefix. It is useful when you develop JFFS2
>>with debugging output on. In this case you will just s/JFFS2 Error and
>>see all the error messages. But currently, it is hard to find all the
>>error messages in JFFS2 because some of them use prefix "Error", some
>>just contain the word "failed", etc.
> I'm not sure that just a standard prefix will really help with
> debugging. The trick is still to know what's important, and what's
> noise. And running it with full debugging is slow enough already over a
> 115200 baud serial line, without adding more stuff to each line :)
I'm debugging JFFS2 on the P4 host with the Flash simulator, so I do not
restricted by the serial line speed. May be somebody use USB which is
The situation is that I have *lots* of debugging output and want to see
all warnings/errors. May be not only I :-) Yes, some of the output is
unneeded and too noisy, but many is very useful.
Moreover, we will not need to write the name of function in the
debugging printk. I mean
D1(printk(KERN_DEBUG "some_long_function_name(): some important message"));
We will use shorter calls like
JFFS2DMSG(1, "some important message");
> I'd much rather see an effort to weed out the unnecessary prints at
> debug level 1, moving them to level 2. I don't consider level 2 to be
> particularly useful in general; it's _too_ verbose.
Yes, I've mentioned this and I switch off the lists content output when
developing JFFS2. I think these messages should be moved to the level 2.
So, do you think we should not introduce such output macros?
Artem B. Bityuckiy,
More information about the linux-mtd