Re: [PATCH] dprintf implementation

[Aki Tossavainen]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Hollis Blanchard wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 24 February 2005 09:02, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> >> Iirc there were differences of point of view on that matter.
> >> Okuji, what do you think about that idea ?
> >
> > What I said was that you should use strings instead of bit fields.
> > [...]
> > Here you don't have to use bit fields (such as DEBUG_MODE_FS_BIT) at
> > all. When dprintf is called, dprintf simply check if a specified
> > category is included in the variable "debug". Like this:
>
> Ah ok, so the call would look like this:
>       grub_dprintf("disk", "reading block %i", blockno);
>
> Although that could lend itself to difficult-to-detect typos. Perhaps a
> #define would be useful after all:
>       #define GRUB_DBG_DISK "disk"
>       grub_dprintf(GRUB_DBG_DISK, "reading block %i", blockno);
>
> Ah, I see Vincent's patch already does what's needed with the
> grub_dprintf macro, so it's just the conditional output he's working on
> in grub_real_dprintf. Sounds good. :)
>
> -Hollis
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>

Why do you use strings instead of numbers? Use of bitmask would allow
pretty simple config file entry like debug=1231. Just a thought.

Aki Tossavainen