From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F13F1FF168 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:36:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0D8C51202B; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:36:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:36:31 +0100 From: Gabriel Goller <g.goller@proxmox.com> To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <ke6hn5rc5erqs6qsxkyo5m4zdcnzhhv3w3yua6rykvbtz5jumu@2iuu67hhkblu> References: <20250218145226.380369-1-g.goller@proxmox.com> <kfzvtzhuf2uu3tlxekemgcqtwmrqk24kdzbkifnj2srr4lgzsw@dbuq6xjs3c5m> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <kfzvtzhuf2uu3tlxekemgcqtwmrqk24kdzbkifnj2srr4lgzsw@dbuq6xjs3c5m> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20241002-35-39f9a6 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.030 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [lib.rs] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH proxmox v2] worker_task: write result message manually, bypassing tracing 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 18.02.2025 16:05, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 03:52:26PM +0100, Gabriel Goller wrote: >> diff --git a/proxmox-log/src/lib.rs b/proxmox-log/src/lib.rs >> index 8c74e42b618d..755d1b4a850c 100644 >> --- a/proxmox-log/src/lib.rs >> +++ b/proxmox-log/src/lib.rs >> @@ -191,3 +191,20 @@ pub fn init_cli_logger( >> LogTracer::init_with_filter(log_level.as_log())?; >> Ok(()) >> } >> + >> +/// Write manually to the current tasklog bypassing the whole tracing infrastructure. Note that this >> +/// will also bypass all the filtering and writing to journald or elsewhere. If has_failed is true, >> +/// print to stderr as well. >> +pub fn log_manually_to_tasklog(msg: &str, has_failed: bool) -> Result<(), anyhow::Error> { > >What's "manual" about using a provided helper function? :-P I thought of "manual" = "without tracing". >Besides, the name kind of conflicts with the stderr write, which seems >even more specific to the rest-server case. True. >Maybe a `LogContext::log_unfiltered(&str)` and rest-server just calls >this+eprintln!()? Then the `error!()` invocation could be in a `None` >match arm on the `LogContext::current()` match which IMO makes for much >nicer control flow. Damn, that's neat! >Do we even anticipate any other use case than the one in rest-server? Nope, not really, just this one. Will submit a new patch with the changes soon! _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel