On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 06:24:29AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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.
Sure.
> 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.
Yup, and that's exactly what we use them for.
However, we don't anyone to use them in mainline because they are
for debugging or features that aren't in mainline, but they are not
easily of ussefully separable from the core XFS code. Hence we use
CONFIG_XFS_??? options that you can't turn on in mainline to
enforce this - making them CONFIG_XFS_??? options means we don't
have to maintain different code in the dev tree and mainline and IMO
that is a Good Thing.
> 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.
Clashes with what? Someone has suggested moving the X font server into
the kernel? ;)
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
|