From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 3FB1C9EBE7 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:27:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 22EF81B6AC for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:27:13 +0100 (CET) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:27:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 627DF441E6 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:27:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7e885366-0948-4934-a26c-7c486ff0e5d8@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:27:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20231025135325.198073-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <20231025135325.198073-3-g.goller@proxmox.com> From: Gabriel Goller In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.269 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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: [pbs-devel] [RFC proxmox v2 2/2] proxmox-log: added tracing infra X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 10:27:13 -0000 On 11/3/23 10:52, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: > [..] >> To be honest, I don't really get the advantage of a Future-Wrapper? >> Why not just have a: >> ```rust >> tokio::spawn(async move { > ^ this async{} block up here should not be necessary, `.scope()` returns > a future. > >>     LOGGER.scope(logger, async move { >>         // worker logic >>     }) >> }) >> ``` >> and >> ```rust >> let _child = std::thread::Builder::new() >>     .name(upid.clone()) >>     .spawn(move || { >>         LOGGER.sync_scope(logger, || { >>             // worker logic >>         }) >>     }); > It's essentially the same, so that's fine too. > I'm guessing you intend to skip the boolean part then and only go with > whether a logger is set? Yes, kinda. I think I'll check if a FileLogger exists, then print to syslog or tasklog. The thing is I don't know if I should keep it simple and merge everything in a single layer, or if I should do the check in the Filters (of which there are two, one for each layer). If we merge it into a single layer, it's easy and fast, but it's not that clean anymore, we can't reuse the single layers etc.. If we keep them separated, we have to check twice if the FileLogger exists (in each filter) (it's probably not so expensive, but still) but we'll keep the FileLogLayer and the SyslogLayer separated and clean. What do you think?