[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y01Lnh5DqGUPuibf@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 09:33:34 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To: James Clark <james.clark@....com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix "Track with sched_switch" test by not printing
warnings in quiet mode
Em Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 10:47:34AM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
> On 13/10/2022 17:57, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:12 AM James Clark <james.clark@....com> wrote:
> >> On 12/10/2022 17:50, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:13 AM James Clark <james.clark@....com> wrote:
> >>>>> The test already supplies -q to run in quiet mode, so extend quiet mode
> >>>>> to perf_stdio__warning() and also ui__warning() for consistency.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure if suppressing the warnings with -q is a good thing.
> >>> Maybe we need to separate warning/debug messages from the output.
> >>
> >> I don't see the issue with warnings being suppressed in quiet mode as
> >> long as errors are still printed. In other cases warnings have already
> >> been suppressed by quiet mode and this site is the odd one out.
> >>
> >> What use case are you thinking of where someone explicitly adds -q but
> >> wants to see non fatal warnings?
> >
> > I don't have any specific use case. If it's already suppressed in other
> > cases, I'm fine with it.
> >
>
> Actually I may have been mistaken. Seems like quiet is only used for
> "extra info" type messages rather than warnings. Although the commit
> message does say:
>
> The -q/--quiet option is to suppress any message. Sometimes users just
> want to see the numbers and it can be used for that case.
>
> With 'any' that I would take to include warnings as well. I could move
> warnings to stderr, but this has a much greater chance of breaking
> anyone's workflows that might be looking for warnings on stdout than
> removing warnings when -q is provided.
>
> Also if warnings are moved to stderr and quiet isn't used, there would
> be no way to suppress warnings in the TUI which might actually be a
> useful feature.
>
> So I'm still leaning towards the original change, if you are ok with
> that even though it's not done elsewhere?
Namhyung? I tend to agree with James.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists