From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Teigland Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:50:45 -0500 Subject: [Cluster-devel] logsys in fenced In-Reply-To: References: <20080625042547.24195.qmail@sourceware.org> <20080625144343.GA18958@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080625165045.GC18958@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 06:19:00PM +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: > >. Leave log_debug() unchanged, > > The only change is that it uses logsys to print instead fprintf to stderr. > Like Christine already pointed out, the change to logsys is to have log > output the same across the whole system. No exceptions. Debug is no > different from that, I'm saying it is different. My debugging capabilities are completely separate from logging. You're trying to redefine them for me, and I'm declining. > and with logsys you can set debug logs at runtime > instead of having to do manual things. Sorry, that's not what I want. > > syslog/logsys are about logging to files. > > this is an assumption. logsys allows you to log to file, syslog and stderr > according to what you need. That's fine for the log_error statements, not for debugging statements. > What is wrong with collecting debugging info in a standard way? For now, my only interest in logsys is as a replacement for syslog. Once that works, I'll consider changes to the debug system. > and what's the gain to keep around a macro that does nothing vs calling > directly log_printf? See my other mail, and you're venturing into coding style preferences that are not relevant to logsys. > >. Finally, one gripe with logsys itself. Here's syslog initialization: > > > > Discuss this with Steven. Yes, I'll be studying the gory logsys details in an effort to propose some more concrete api suggestions.