BTW,

do people have some strong objections against adding boot verbose
flag ? Would make porting FreeBSD code little bit easier and
generally seems like good idea - could enable to compile with
all the debugging messages compiled in, yet still print all the
stuff only when needed.

Jaromir

Matthew Jacob wrote on source-changes@netbsd.org (shortened):
> What I really wanted was a 'boot verbose'- which isn't available in NetBSD.
> The whole message stuff in this driver is about to get nuked in a few
> weeks anyway, at which point in time, the cheezy defines will go away.
> 
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, John Hawkinson wrote:
> > | ----------------------------
> > | revision 1.53
> > | date: 2000/06/03 22:44:43;  author: fair;  state: Exp;  lines: +3 -3
> > | Change the debug level from 1 to 3 for "skipping target" diagnostic
> > | which spews unreasonably for a Qlogic SCSI-2 narrow controller, which
> > | does not have ID's above 7.
> > | ----------------------------
> > | revision 1.54
> > | date: 2000/07/05 22:20:51;  author: mjacob;  state: Exp;  lines: +476 -521
> > | Back out previous commit- the author is incorrect. There is no 'narrow'
> > | Qlogic controller driven by this chipset. If they don't want the verbosity,
> > | don't compile a DIAGNOSTIC kernel.
> > 
> > This does not follow.
> > 
> > "DIAGNOSTIC" is for "cheap kernel consistency checks". It is not for
> > debugging messages. DIAGNOSTIC is part of the GENERIC kernel for most
> > architectures.
> > 
> > This whole section of code, isp_netbsd.h:
> > 
> >    107  #if     defined(SCSIDEBUG)
> >    108  #define DFLT_DBLEVEL            3
> >    109  #define CFGPRINTF               printf
> >    110  #elif   defined(DEBUG)
> >    111  #define DFLT_DBLEVEL            2
> >    112  #define CFGPRINTF               printf
> >    113  #elif   defined(DIAGNOSTIC)
> >    114  #define DFLT_DBLEVEL            1
> >    115  #define CFGPRINTF               printf
> >    116  #else
> >    117  #define DFLT_DBLEVEL            0
> >    118  #define CFGPRINTF               if (0) printf
> >    119  #endif
> > 
> > is bogus. DIAGNOSTIC should not cause increased debugging printfs.
> > 
> > To my mind, fair's code was better than the current state or the state
> > prior to it. Neither was correct, though.
> > 
> > Further, most drivers do this sort of thing with a driver-specific macro,
> > such as ISPDEBUG_VALUE or ISPDEBUG or somesuch. This behavior
> > of changing verbosity based on other unrelated items
> > (e.g. DEBUG and DIAGNOSTIC) is non-intuitive and can produce
> > nasty changes in behavior when trying to debug other subsytems.
> > 
> > Can we please axe it, or at least make the DIAGNOSTIC level the same
> > as that without it?
> > 
> > --jhawk
> > 
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>      http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
@@@@  Wanna a real operating system ? Go and get NetBSD, damn!  @@@@