From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C3C74963
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:22:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C9AC220C4C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:22:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 00AEE20C41
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:22:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CD557439DF
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:22:04 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1ab7737a-c037-a704-49ba-390c1b5ac8bc@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 16:22:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220527093725.328135-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
<d4ba705f-b217-3826-42d3-5e803854b053@proxmox.com>
From: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d4ba705f-b217-3826-42d3-5e803854b053@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 1.099 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -2.764 Looks like a legit reply (A)
POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam
POISEN_SPAM_PILL_2 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
POISEN_SPAM_PILL_4 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-cluster] Change log statements to debug
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2022 14:22:38 -0000
On 28.05.2022 09:22, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 27/05/2022 11:37, Matthias Heiserer wrote:
>> They have been commented with //fixme for more than 11 years
>> and contain little information, so at least make them debug logs.
>
> not really that of a good reason? Was there some actual event from a
> user report or similar to trigger this? As otherwise one could argue
> that they didn't really bother anyone in 11 years, so not much gained
> in removing them. If there where actual some complaints about noise,
> I'd at least also drop the fixme comment.
>
Someone asked in the forum [0] about the meaning of these log entries.
I figured that changing it to a debug statement and leaving the comment
allows for completely removing the statement later, while keeping it for
now in case someone needed it.
But ofc you're right, there's not really a need to remove it.
If we keep the log statement as-is, because there is nothing to be
fixed, I think we can remove the fixme comments altogether, would you agree?
[0]
https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/was-bedeuten-die-eintr%C3%A4ge-pmxcfs-2817-status-notice-received-log.110026/
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Heiserer <m.heiserer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> data/src/logger.c | 2 +-
>> data/src/status.c | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/data/src/logger.c b/data/src/logger.c
>> index 619e1f6..c4fcdaa 100644
>> --- a/data/src/logger.c
>> +++ b/data/src/logger.c
>> @@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ clusterlog_insert(
>> if (dedup_lookup(cl->dedup, entry)) {
>> clog_copy(cl->base, entry);
>> } else {
>> - cfs_message("ignore duplicate"); // fixme remove
>> + cfs_debug("ignore duplicate"); // fixme remove
>> }
>>
>> g_mutex_unlock(&cl->mutex);
>> diff --git a/data/src/status.c b/data/src/status.c
>> index 9bceaeb..5e39109 100644
>> --- a/data/src/status.c
>> +++ b/data/src/status.c
>> @@ -1668,7 +1668,7 @@ dfsm_deliver(
>> cfs_critical("cant parse update message");
>> }
>> } else if (msg_type == KVSTORE_MESSAGE_LOG) {
>> - cfs_message("received log"); // fixme: remove
>> + cfs_debug("received log"); // fixme: remove
>> const clog_entry_t *entry;
>> if ((entry = kvstore_parse_log_message(msg, msg_len))) {
>> clusterlog_insert(cfs_status.clusterlog, entry);
>