Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: send failure logs to stderr

[Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>]

On 6/11/21 4:21 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:35:59AM +0100, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 6/11/2021 10:19 AM, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
>>> On 6/11/21 5:06 AM, Li, Xiaoyun wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 00:25
>>>> To: Li, Xiaoyun <xiaoyun.li@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] app/testpmd: send failure logs to stderr
>>>>
>>>> Running with stdout suppressed or redirected for further processing is very confusing in the case of errors.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> This patch looks good to me.
>>>> But what do you think about make it as a fix and backport to stable branches?
>>>> Anyway works for me.
>>>
>>> I have no strong opinion on the topic.
>>>
>>> @Ferruh, what do you think?
>>>
>>
>> Same here, no strong opinion.
>> Sending errors to 'stderr' looks correct thing to do, but changing behavior in
>> the LTS may cause some unexpected side affect, if it is scripted and testpmd
>> output is parsed etc... For this possibility I would wait for the next LTS.
>>
> There are really 3 options, though:
> * apply and backport
> * apply now
> * apply only to next LTS
> 
> I would tend to support the middle option, because sending errors to stderr
> is the right thing to do as you say, and I don't think we need to wait for
> next LTS to make the change. However, since we don't want to change
> behaviour in the older LTS's, I'd suggest not backporting.

Many thanks for motivated point of view. I fully agree.