Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 14 Oct 2022 10:47:34 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix "Track with sched_switch" test by not printing warnings in quiet mode | From | James Clark <> |
| |
On 13/10/2022 17:57, Namhyung Kim wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:12 AM James Clark <james.clark@arm.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/10/2022 17:50, Namhyung Kim wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:13 AM James Clark <james.clark@arm.com> wrote: >>>>> The test already supplies -q to run in quiet mode, so extend quiet mode >>>>> to perf_stdio__warning() and also ui__warning() for consistency. >>> >>> I'm not sure if suppressing the warnings with -q is a good thing. >>> Maybe we need to separate warning/debug messages from the output. >> >> I don't see the issue with warnings being suppressed in quiet mode as >> long as errors are still printed. In other cases warnings have already >> been suppressed by quiet mode and this site is the odd one out. >> >> What use case are you thinking of where someone explicitly adds -q but >> wants to see non fatal warnings? > > I don't have any specific use case. If it's already suppressed in other > cases, I'm fine with it. >
Actually I may have been mistaken. Seems like quiet is only used for "extra info" type messages rather than warnings. Although the commit message does say:
The -q/--quiet option is to suppress any message. Sometimes users just want to see the numbers and it can be used for that case.
With 'any' that I would take to include warnings as well. I could move warnings to stderr, but this has a much greater chance of breaking anyone's workflows that might be looking for warnings on stdout than removing warnings when -q is provided.
Also if warnings are moved to stderr and quiet isn't used, there would be no way to suppress warnings in the TUI which might actually be a useful feature.
So I'm still leaning towards the original change, if you are ok with that even though it's not done elsewhere?
> Thanks, > Namhyung
| |