[SSSD] Discussion of debug log levels (take 2)

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Jun 20 20:33:35 UTC 2011


On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 21:55 +0200, Jan Zeleny wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ok, I'm going to try to summarize the responses from Simo and Jakub,
> > then hopefully we'll accept them and we can add this information to the
> > coding and contribution guidelines. (I have intentionally broken the
> > thread).
> > 
> > I agree with Simo that we should break this into a bitfield. I'm going
> > to suggest that we consider a match of 0x000F to be an error, 0x00F0 to
> > be informational and 0x0F00 to be developer. This adjusts Simo's numbers
> > slightly, but it makes a little more room available at each level in
> > case we want to add a new level in the middle.
> > 
> > I also think we should change the config file option name to "debug"
> > rather than "debug_mask". I think it's more readable.
> 
> How would this mask look and work exactly?
> 

I meant that "debug_level = 9" would become "debug = 0xFF" in the config
file (I think allowing it to be set to either hex or decimal is more
sensible than just decimal)

> When we are discussing debug messages, I vaguely recall that debug level 0 
> logged only to /var/log/secure and not to /var/log/sssd/*. Is this intended?

I don't know where you got that idea. I suggested that the DEBUG macro
should ALSO log to /var/log/messages for all level-0 issues. But they
should still be in the standard debug logs as well.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.fedorahosted.org/pipermail/sssd-devel/attachments/20110620/e80d5ad6/attachment.sig>


More information about the sssd-devel mailing list