From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A5B1BB for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4E0C186 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:59:15 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Bjorn Helgaas Message-ID: <20150731165915.GA4995@roeck-us.net> References: <55BAE39F.9060705@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Sasha Levin , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Self nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Bjorn, On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:27:38AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > > Mainly I'd like to talk about improving testing around the kernel, both by catching bugs > > and by improving the quality of debug output that comes out of the kernel. > > What sort of debug output improvements are you interested in? I spend > a fair amount of time converting to dev_printk and %pR. They make the I have been wondering about that, especially since dev_dbg() and 'dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG, ...)' are semantically different. Any reason for preferring dev_printk() over dev_dbg() ? Thank, Guenter