Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] btrfs-progs: make quiet to overrule verbose

[Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>]

On 11/1/19 11:18 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:42:56AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>>>>>     Question: command -v -q -v should be equal to command -v, right?
>>>>
>>>> No, that would be equivalent to the default level:
>>>>
>>>> verbose starts with 1            ()
>>>> verbose++                (-v)
>>>> verbose = 0                (-q)
>>>> verbose++ is now 1, which is not -v    ()
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh I was thinking its a bug, and no need to carry forward to the global
>>> verbose. Will make it look like this.
>>
>> What do you think should be the final %verbose value when both
>> local and global verbose and or quiet options are specified?
>>
>> For example:
>>    btrfs -v -q sub-command -v
>>    btrfs -q sub-command -v
>>    btrfs -vv sub-command -q
>>    etc..
> 
> Ah that's the conflicting part.

> I'd say treat all -v and -q equal,

  Umm I don't understand what is treating equal here.
  The sub-command already treats differently under sub-command options.
  As shown below.

       case 'v':
                 bconf.verbose++;
                 break;
       case 'q':
                 bconf.verbose = 0;
		break;


> so
> modify the bconf.verbose variable, and it's straightforward to document.
> Some time in the future we should also issue a warning for 'sub-command
> -v'.

  I am guessing you mean:- Warning option is deprecated ?

> The order makes it unintuitive so
> 
>    btrfs -q command -v
> 
> is going to be the default verbosity.

  default verbosity is 0? 1 ?
  As of now in send/receive default verbosity is 1. And rest
  of the sub-commands its 0.

  And as the -v is last to appear the command will be
  equivalent to 'btrfs sub-command -q -v' which is verbosity level 1.
  I hope this is reasonable.

> We can't ignore the sub-command
> part, and making it conditionally work in case there's no global
> verbosity setting is kind of complicating it.

  Umm. As of now in v1.1, the sub-command continues to operate on the
  global bconf.verbose values, which works very well. Please see v1.1
  in the ML.

> So let's take the simple approach, maybe we'll have second thought on
> that before release.
> 

  Sure. To simplify the discussion, in v1.1 cover-letter I have included
  verbosity implementation code sample, hope this helps.

verbosity code sample as in v1.1

Thanks, Anand