From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D21CAA0567; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:33:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E92A4068C; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:33:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D443140687 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:33:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1DF177A; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 07:33:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 07:33:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= J8lIyIR44P5ZmXYpbkS4oTQ9NWbiJWkx7MSmZyJlE9M=; b=Kedy3V8Om7WUSQUY db1b5lPtZbyiKJNUmDsxJQbxg7OWlgWewkUSfnszi4MfQsxgQ8pTTUEgZ4yaF8SD z0Pb27Jmo4tzgBGCVZJDs0FmToPI5SFuvJgnqwcnaHILzCS/sCkNs8f9nn7GQhxf xUWO4cqR/ent8DB9NdKQC4GCZ8FOsG8LFzbX0g4JDst22zl6XmIDuTgzAMu3W5Bq ydPW8mjq/hS9Ao7t3VffgoCzeN4ntWOGPiSOMXVgHMfXcGXwRvk9JNOLURLQDEmA uNH70lalNX7NOUyiZZKRfBMFhskYFnulJyTuqnYyfSDNYHGWqNBEsxdGgUo43B0/ ymcIlw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=J8lIyIR44P5ZmXYpbkS4oTQ9NWbiJWkx7MSmZyJlE 9M=; b=jq5zdCcPtj/kxct+vPKfiu1s5VacsZOD6huvo/kyOW0EgkIAXTakQ0zof 5NoCci6ZdrD5xSFKausBqlM3MUusRb5BcNlSC4p7uETpvg2E8scTMzyIUqOIlicj 5s+VCrZiMqdYg72vufphx9XD3Zw2HEuk5H2zgjDMsQ/NiXDIJ0fJXnYhqifq1pKj gyPY8pySj3iF78ZMyoi30AEbWaEGSf00PJRbdiBojyhGfmL6wXmyAvgUR0h9EtBq HNVYuH91wN0Ql3OhU8+Y/liSh0QHl+PLsiSTRohlYmteM2FdKG4RzUkUvHy8VmaK wKV5pSa5dO7WJoJeZ2yQ/tOBduKTg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddukedggedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgr shcuofhonhhjrghlohhnuceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudeggfdvfeduffdtfeeglefghfeukefgfffhueejtdetuedtjeeu ieeivdffgeehnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvddtfedrudekgeenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghl ohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2645F108005F; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 07:33:22 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Cc: dev@dpdk.org, david.marchand@redhat.com Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 13:33:20 +0100 Message-ID: <9127530.BAheoJpsKH@thomas> In-Reply-To: <20210310121924.GA1267@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20210309233116.1934666-1-thomas@monjalon.net> <20210309233116.1934666-7-thomas@monjalon.net> <20210310121924.GA1267@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 06/11] eal: catch invalid log level number X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 10/03/2021 13:19, Bruce Richardson: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:31:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The parsing check for invalid log level was not trying to catch > > irrelevant numeric values. > > A log level 0 or too high is now a failure in options parsing > > so it can be caught early. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon > > One thing I'd note here is that our log range of 1 to 8 is a little > strange, and that it would be nice if we could accept 9 as a valid log > level too on the cmdline. Ideally 0 would also be acceptable, for all > logging off, but it's more likely that people want to up the log level than > reduce it, and 9 is a more expected max value than 8. Why 9 is more expected? Note that log level numbers are old-school, now we can use symbolic names ;)