I was thinking this as well, having the dev_* macros make the check for the
current logging level. That way each call to the macros wouldn't have to
check the flag but could be part of the added value the macros give us.
> > Is debugging level here the same as logging level?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I like the idea of having logging levels, which include debug, defined by
> > subsystem. Each subsystem will have separate requirements for logging.
> > Networking, for instance, already has the NETIF_MSG* levels defined in
> > netdevice.h that can be set with Ethtool. I can see, for example, having
> > the msg_enable not in the private data as it is now but in the subsystem
> > or class structure for that device, such as in struct net_device. This
> > could easily be exported through sysfs.
>
> It would be nice. Unfortunately, it's only a nifty pipe-dream at the
> moment, unless some lucky volunteer would like to step forward. ;)
This is where I was going back when I sent you the patch for the network
device class. Unfortunately, I haven't returned to looking at it. Too busy
banging my head against other things... <grin>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/