Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 3 Aug 2013 12:49:41 -0700
From:      Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To:        Cedric GROSS <cg@cgross.info>
Cc:        freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [IWN] Reviw split 2
Message-ID:  <CAJ-Vmo=YBzkcySqJxWhn0WWtbSrCsT41GO%2BBwYOvDHu2_A7KBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <003201ce9081$b401a270$1c04e750$@info>
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>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3 August 2013 12:43, Cedric GROSS <cg@cgross.info> wrote:

>> 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) == (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)

Ok. I like the general idea, but I think overloading that for the
general case is against POLA.

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.

So I'd like to come up with an alternative way to do trace debugging
like you ask.

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.



-adrian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=YBzkcySqJxWhn0WWtbSrCsT41GO%2BBwYOvDHu2_A7KBQ>