From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <ouster@cs.stanford.edu> Received: from smtp3.cs.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.cs.stanford.edu [171.64.64.27]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5133DFE5 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 02:22:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:38179) by smtp3.cs.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ouster@cs.stanford.edu>) id 1bu7Ju-000474-W4 for dev@dpdk.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:55 -0700 Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o19so39497303ito.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RlYTjP54S8no7KJOh5eiEMTvIioOMluSIoDcSriYIhyJ5nibicRHbqLJj40J1CSyLfsCTsitZEGJdMDAw== X-Received: by 10.36.6.196 with SMTP id 187mr281953itv.40.1476231774662; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.98.67 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <MWHPR01MB267138D3B2A38A9D7894FED9A0DA0@MWHPR01MB2671.prod.exchangelabs.com> References: <20160928204244.8288-1-ouster@cs.stanford.edu> <20161010223933.5924-1-ouster@cs.stanford.edu> <2532748.dRiGlJefCg@xps13> <CAGXJAmyrmpMgkSety2HW_Oain91AZad-9uVqMoUCQRj2ZhA7XQ@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR01MB267138D3B2A38A9D7894FED9A0DA0@MWHPR01MB2671.prod.exchangelabs.com> From: John Ousterhout <ouster@cs.stanford.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:14 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAGXJAmzJEBQVL4vpf8aHJY70bidNdZBDtYx0PmkS3qGhQasUDg@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAGXJAmzJEBQVL4vpf8aHJY70bidNdZBDtYx0PmkS3qGhQasUDg@mail.gmail.com> To: Don Provan <dprovan@bivio.net> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> X-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin on smtp3.cs.Stanford.EDU X-Scan-Signature: b6c1f4b091abe5b5a29b37e1ccaa2d85 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] log: respect rte_openlog_stream calls before rte_eal_init X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:22:56 -0000 Don's argument for stderr over stdout makes sense to me. Does anyone else disagree? -John- On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Don Provan <dprovan@bivio.net> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Ousterhout [mailto:ouster@cs.stanford.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:30 AM > > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] log: respect rte_openlog_stream calls > > before rte_eal_init > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Thomas Monjalon > > <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> > > wrote: > > > I don't know either. > > > What is best between stdout and stderr for logs? > > > > I would guess that stdout makes more sense, since most log entries > describe > > normal operation, not errors. I'm happy to make these consistent, but > this > > would introduce a behavior change for BSD (which currently uses stderr); > > would that be considered antisocial? > > I've never seen a pronouncement or anything, but as a linux programmer, > my attitude is that stdout should be the output the application is > producing > when carrying out its function. Debugging output isn't part of what the > application is trying to accomplish, so it should be sent to stderr where > it > can be segregated from the functional output when needed. > -don > dprovan@bivio.net > >