On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 06:18:07PM +1200, david.sainty%dtsp.co.nz@localhost wrote: > Tim Rightnour writes: > > > On 19-Apr-2008 Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > If they are not important enough to be noticable, why are you using > > > aprint_error in first place? Or printf for that matter. If you really > > > don't want to see them, you can use the boot flags to silence them, they > > > are still going into dmesg. > > > > Perhaps what he wants is the console to be nice and clean and have > > syslog write them out, and his little monitoring script to pick them > > up from the logs. We should let the user decide, not decide for > > him. > > > > My problem with aprint_error in normal operation is that I can't > > shut it up. I don't consider a boot time flag a reasonable solution > > to that when we have a perfectly good facility for it already. > > Maybe unify aprintf() and log()? Do we really need two > separate-yet-really-similar interfaces having subtly different > behaviour and roles that not all developers agree on? As I said earlier, the whole "boot time" stuff doesn't make any more sense nowadays, with autoconf happening all the time. So yes, a unified API makes a lot of sense. -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling" KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Attachment:
pgpWdSlQWHHMm.pgp
Description: PGP signature