netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] tools: bpftool: add -d option to get debug output from libbpf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190523134421.38a0da0c@cakuba.netronome.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 13:44:21 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 1/3] tools: bpftool: add -d option to get
 debug output from libbpf

On Thu, 23 May 2019 09:20:52 -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:54 AM Quentin Monnet wrote:
> >
> > libbpf has three levels of priority for output messages: warn, info,
> > debug. By default, debug output is not printed to the console.
> >
> > Add a new "--debug" (short name: "-d") option to bpftool to print libbpf
> > logs for all three levels.
> >
> > Internally, we simply use the function provided by libbpf to replace the
> > default printing function by one that prints logs regardless of their
> > level.
> >
> > v2:
> > - Remove the possibility to select the log-levels to use (v1 offered a
> >   combination of "warn", "info" and "debug").
> > - Rename option and offer a short name: -d|--debug.  
> 
> Such and option in CLI tools is usually called -v|--verbose, I'm
> wondering if it might be a better name choice?
> 
> Btw, some tools also use -v, -vv and -vvv to define different levels
> of verbosity, which is something we can consider in the future, as
> it's backwards compatible.

That was my weak suggestion.  Sometimes -v is used for version, e.g.
GCC.  -d is sometimes used for debug, e.g. man, iproute2 uses it as
short for "detailed".  If the consensus is that -v is better I don't
really mind.