From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752743Ab1GBIkS (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jul 2011 04:40:18 -0400 Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:41248 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750941Ab1GBIkR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jul 2011 04:40:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110701215740.GA13572@kroah.com> References: <1309244992-2305-1-git-send-email-jim.cromie@gmail.com> <1309244992-2305-2-git-send-email-jim.cromie@gmail.com> <20110701215740.GA13572@kroah.com> From: Jim Cromie Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 02:39:46 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] dynamic_debug: allow changing of dynamic_debug verbosity any time To: Greg KH Cc: Bart Van Assche , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gnb@fmeh.org, jbaron@redhat.com, gregkh@suse.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:41:18PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Jim Cromie wrote: >> > allow changing dynamic_debug verbosity >> > at boot-time, with: dynamic_debug.verbose=1 >> > or at runtime with: >> > root@voyage:~# echo 1 > /sys/module/dynamic_debug/parameters/verbose >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jim Cromie >> > --- >> >  lib/dynamic_debug.c |    1 + >> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/lib/dynamic_debug.c b/lib/dynamic_debug.c >> > index 75ca78f..a3b08d5 100644 >> > --- a/lib/dynamic_debug.c >> > +++ b/lib/dynamic_debug.c >> > @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ struct ddebug_iter { >> >  static DEFINE_MUTEX(ddebug_lock); >> >  static LIST_HEAD(ddebug_tables); >> >  static int verbose = 0; >> > +module_param(verbose, int, 0744); >> >> Why 0744 and not 0644 ? Why to set the 'executable' bit ? > > Yeah, that's wrong, Jim, care to fix this? > > yes, sorry for not ackg. Id had it right on the pending_ct and pending_max, this one was a d'oh second set forthcoming, with some of the refinements to pending queries that Jason wanted.