From owner-freebsd-wireless@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 3 19:43:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CABD90; Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:43:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cg@cgross.info) Received: from alpha.kreiz-it.fr (alpha.kreiz-it.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:8:dda6::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9292BD9; Sat, 3 Aug 2013 19:43:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DirTech (lnr56-1-82-246-51-185.fbx.proxad.net [82.246.51.185]) by alpha.kreiz-it.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5168B60B; Sat, 3 Aug 2013 21:43:21 +0200 (CEST) From: "Cedric GROSS" To: "'Adrian Chadd'" References: <51f3f0ce.055a420a.2e1e.fffff220SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <002d01ce8c46$a13b23d0$e3b16b70$@info> <002701ce8e03$c033f640$409be2c0$@info> <002401ce8f5f$fc5ad780$f5108680$@info> <001001ce903b$e77a5f70$b66f1e50$@info> <001e01ce907e$f1daf220$d590d660$@info> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [IWN] Reviw split 2 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 21:43:15 +0200 Message-ID: <003201ce9081$b401a270$1c04e750$@info> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac6QgM4zaN939jPUTx6MEv02PZZw6gAAGQ2w Content-Language: fr Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussions of 802.11 stack, tools device driver development." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 19:43:22 -0000 > 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 21:37 > =C0=A0: Cedric GROSS > Cc=A0: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org > Objet=A0: Re: [IWN] Reviw split 2 >=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? >=20 > ie >=20 > (f) & (v) >=20 > versus > ( (f) & (v) =3D=3D (v) ) >=20 > ? 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 > I'd like to tidy up the debugging changes that are left in your source > file before we move onto the next bits. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -adrian