Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2015 15:49:44 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Eric Badger <eric@badgerio.us>, 'Poul-Henning Kamp' <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: Early use of log() does not end up in kernel msg buffer Message-ID: <2033248.Eu3RHS8lTG@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <5514CC6D.3020607@badgerio.us> References: <5514CC6D.3020607@badgerio.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:20:13 PM Eric Badger wrote:
> Using log(9) when no process is reading the log results in the message
> going only to the console (contrast with printf(9), which goes to the
> console and to the kernel message buffer in this case). I believe it is
> truer to the semantics of logging for messages to *always* go to the
> message buffer (where they can eventually be collected and in fact put
> into a logfile). I therefore propose the attached patch, which sends
> log(9) to the message buffer always, and to the console only if no one
> has yet opened the log.
>
> It may be more complete to log to the console only if the log level is
> greater than some (user defined) value, but this seems like that might
> be more than necessary for this case.
>
> Thoughts?
I think phk@ broke this back in 70239. Before that the log() function did
this:
log()
{
/* log to the msg buffer */
kvprintf(fmt, msglogchar, ...);
if (!log_open) {
/* log to console */
kvprintf(fmt, putchar, ...);
}
}
I think your patch is fine unless phk@ (cc'd) has a reason for not wanting to
do this.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2033248.Eu3RHS8lTG>