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 475A49355C for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2622317465 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:11 +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 14:08:10 +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 63081441E6 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <97bc5c53-2f6b-4ab9-8d01-2c289e3c4075@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:08:09 +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> <20240205122854.83495-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <74e70701-f306-422e-897e-76650451ea14@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <74e70701-f306-422e-897e-76650451ea14@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] [RFC common 2/2] REST environment: fork worker: install custom __WARN__ handler 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 13:08:11 -0000 Am 05.02.24 um 13:39 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 05/02/2024 um 13:28 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >> So all warnings will be treated consistently inside a worker task. In >> particular, all warnings will count towards the task warning count and >> be more visible in the UI. Avoids the need to switch existing warnings >> to log_warn(). >> >> When pvedaemon forked a worker, the worker would inherit its __WARN__ >> handler and also log any warnings to syslog, so make sure those >> warnings are not less visible than before, by also logging to syslog. >> >> The same warning would not show up in syslog when the task was invoked >> via the CLI instead, which was another inconsistency. >> >> The __WARN__ handler needs to increment the warning_count for warnings >> issued with Perl's warn. But then in RESTEnvironment.pm's warn method, >> warning_count cannot be incremented anymore, because otherwise a call >> to log_warn() would increment it once, call warn, and then the >> __WARN__ handler would increment it again. The variable is only ever >> read in fork_worker(), so it is safe to just move the code >> incrementing it to the __WARN__ handler, because that will be called >> by both, Perl's warn and log_warn(). >> >> This effectively makes log_warn() and RESTEnvironment.pm's warn method >> not worth using anymore, so deprecate them. >> > > they where deliberately added though, warn and task-log warnings can > be two very different things, which IMO should stay that way.. Then I misunderstood. I though the plan was to have all warnings show up as task warnings in the long term. It feels a bit strange to me to have two different kinds of warnings. We should document when log_warn() should and shouldn't be used then. I honestly don't know.