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 828379356A for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6582917502 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:14 +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 ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:12 +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 9E18B441E6 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <575eebca-4756-4fb9-948c-5d310c3872f6@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240205122854.83495-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <89a5ce7d-0be1-4a5a-8f34-c3365a873bf4@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <89a5ce7d-0be1-4a5a-8f34-c3365a873bf4@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.072 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 1/2] REST environment: warn helpers: use warn instead of printing to stderr X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2024 13:08:14 -0000 Am 05.02.24 um 13:38 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 05/02/2024 um 13:28 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >> Like this, __WARN__ handlers will still be called. In particular, >> daemons like pvestatd will set a __WARN__ handler and also log >> warnings to syslog. The intention behind introducing log_warn() was to >> make warnings more visible, not less, so fix the semantics to make >> sure switching from warn to log_warn() does not have this unintended >> side-effect. > > did you saw my reply w.r.t. this [0]? > > https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-February/061610.html Yes, but I wanted to make log_warn and warn behave more consistently, since I wasn't aware that they should be different. I can send a v2 with using syslog() in log_warn() instead.