xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: question about potentially dead kernel config settings

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: question about potentially dead kernel config settings for XFS
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 06:24:29 -0500 (EST)
Cc: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070128203911.GC33919298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701261607240.30502@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6> <20070128203911.GC33919298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, David Chinner wrote:

> > ========== XFS_DMAPI ==========
>
> Definitely not dead - see our CVS tree on oss.sgi.com which has
> all the DMAPI stuff in it...
>
> > ========== XFS_DEBUG ==========
> > ========== XFS_TRACE ==========
>
> Definitely not dead, either. These are debug options that have
> kconfig entries in the CVS tree. We use them all the time for
> development, QA and bug finding - we just don't push the config
> options to mainline.

  not sure i mentioned this earlier but there's still an outstanding
issue with those macros above.  the reason they were flagged by my
script is that a macro of the form "CONFIG_<whatever>" exists in the
source tree somewhere, while there is no corresponding Kconfig file
that defines that macro.

  the general rule i've heard is that, if something isn't a
user-configurable kernel setting, it should not have a configuration
macro name starting with "CONFIG_" -- that should be reserved for
configurable settings defined in Kconfig files.  if this is strictly
an internal debugging macro you're using in-house, it should be called
"XFS_DEBUG" as opposed to "CONFIG_" to avoid any confusion and
potential future name clashes.

rday


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>