On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 06:18:46PM +0000, Eads, Gage wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2020 10:58 AM > > To: Eads, Gage <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Karlsson, Magnus > > <[email protected]>; Topel, Bjorn <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/20] dlb2: add skeleton for DLB 2.0 driver > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 08:43:12AM -0500, Gage Eads wrote: > > > +static int dlb2_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, > > > + const struct pci_device_id *pdev_id) { > > > + struct dlb2_dev *dlb2_dev; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "probe\n"); > > > > ftrace is your friend. Remove all of your debugging code now, you don't > > need > > it anymore, especially for stuff like this where you didn't even need it in > > the > > first place :( > > I'll remove this and other similar dev_dbg() calls. This was an oversight on > my part. > > I have other instances that a kprobe can't easily replace, such as printing > structure contents, that are useful for tracing the usage of the driver. It > looks like other misc drivers use dev_dbg() similarly -- do you consider this > an acceptable use of a debug print?
Why can't a kernel tracepoint print a structure? thanks, greg k-h
