Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 23:12:35 +0200 From: "Cedric GROSS" <cg@cgross.info> To: "'Adrian Chadd'" <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Subject: RE: [IWN] Reviw split 2 Message-ID: <003501ce908e$2e9d2750$8bd775f0$@info> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=YBzkcySqJxWhn0WWtbSrCsT41GO%2BBwYOvDHu2_A7KBQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <51f3f0ce.055a420a.2e1e.fffff220SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAJ-VmokCVB5kNY44hJLbAfOb1DMSHmJAG3QTUZYhmPL1gHwMwA@mail.gmail.com> <002d01ce8c46$a13b23d0$e3b16b70$@info> <CAJ-Vmon4hMbgFKaWva3-HhcJv=eUXKwX7s0uPcD9Nu9g86QEbA@mail.gmail.com> <002701ce8e03$c033f640$409be2c0$@info> <CAJ-Vmo=yZXdKuXZ85bXs-uG2tAmcZFMAgFXCswnVBk2PUmaXfQ@mail.gmail.com> <002401ce8f5f$fc5ad780$f5108680$@info> <CAJ-VmoniUozz48U0MHhF4sAsrJt6sd06Q9UESRFG9kOXSB2ObQ@mail.gmail.com> <001001ce903b$e77a5f70$b66f1e50$@info> <CAJ-VmonRBrVCZu9dshSEiVxH9=0LhHdxr5tew4tsN1A5R9f0Sw@mail.gmail.com> <001e01ce907e$f1daf220$d590d660$@info> <CAJ-VmokSjs1gWJa0h6evb71Nf0=jNSLBMCW00EtAjinOmT69ig@mail.gmail.com> <003201ce9081$b401a270$1c04e750$@info> <CAJ-Vmo=YBzkcySqJxWhn0WWtbSrCsT41GO%2BBwYOvDHu2_A7KBQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: adrian.chadd@gmail.com [mailto:adrian.chadd@gmail.com] De la = part > de Adrian Chadd > Envoy=E9=A0: samedi 3 ao=FBt 2013 21:50 > =C0=A0: Cedric GROSS > Cc=A0: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org > Objet=A0: Re: [IWN] Reviw split 2 >=20 > On 3 August 2013 12:43, Cedric GROSS <cg@cgross.info> wrote: >=20 > >> Ok, why'd you change the debug print macro to check if the debug > >> flags match the check, rather than if the debug flags are set in = the > check? > >> > >> ie > >> > >> (f) & (v) > >> > >> versus > >> ( (f) & (v) =3D=3D (v) ) > >> > >> ? > > > > It's for reducing tracing verbosity and just do trace when associate > > with another IWN_DEBUG_* So if you wish to debug only XMIT, trace > also > > print only associate with that level (ie IWN_DEBUG_TRACE | > > IWN_DEBUG_XMIT) >=20 > Ok. I like the general idea, but I think overloading that for the > general case is against POLA. >=20 > Eg, ath(4), ath_hal(4), net80211(4) all have the mask idea, rather = than > the exact match idea. So there are cases where multiple bits are set = in > a debug mask (eg some INPUT and 11N flags in net80211) since they're > relevant for both. >=20 > So I'd like to come up with an alternative way to do trace debugging > like you ask. >=20 > Maybe what we should do is add a DPRINTF_TRACE() macro for things that > are specifically _trace_ events, then have a separate trace bitmap for > trace debugging. Ok, I'll do that. >=20 >=20 >=20 > -adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003501ce908e$2e9d2750$8bd775f0$>