From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: John Ousterhout <ouster@cs.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] log: respect rte_openlog_stream calls
 before rte_eal_init
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGXJAmzJEBQVL4vpf8aHJY70bidNdZBDtYx0PmkS3qGhQasUDg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160928204244.8288-1-ouster@cs.stanford.edu>
 <20161010223933.5924-1-ouster@cs.stanford.edu>
 <2532748.dRiGlJefCg@xps13>
 <CAGXJAmyrmpMgkSety2HW_Oain91AZad-9uVqMoUCQRj2ZhA7XQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <MWHPR01MB267138D3B2A38A9D7894FED9A0DA0@MWHPR01MB2671.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Don Provan <dprovan@bivio.net>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from smtp3.cs.Stanford.EDU (smtp3.cs.stanford.edu [171.64.64.27])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5133DFE5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 02:22:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-it0-f45.google.com ([209.85.214.45]:38179)
 by smtp3.cs.Stanford.EDU with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ouster@cs.stanford.edu>)
 id 1bu7Ju-000474-W4 for dev@dpdk.org; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:55 -0700
Received: by mail-it0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o19so39497303ito.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR01MB267138D3B2A38A9D7894FED9A0DA0@MWHPR01MB2671.prod.exchangelabs.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Don's argument for stderr over stdout makes sense to me. Does anyone else
disagree?

-John-

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Don Provan <dprovan@bivio.net> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Ousterhout [mailto:ouster@cs.stanford.edu]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:30 AM
> > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] log: respect rte_openlog_stream calls
> > before rte_eal_init
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Thomas Monjalon
> > <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I don't know either.
> > > What is best between stdout and stderr for logs?
> >
> > I would guess that stdout makes more sense, since most log entries
> describe
> > normal operation, not errors. I'm happy to make these consistent, but
> this
> > would introduce a behavior change for BSD (which currently uses stderr);
> > would that be considered antisocial?
>
> I've never seen a pronouncement or anything, but as a linux programmer,
> my attitude is that stdout should be the output the application is
> producing
> when carrying out its function. Debugging output isn't part of what the
> application is trying to accomplish, so it should be sent to stderr where
> it
> can be segregated from the functional output when needed.
> -don
> dprovan@bivio.net
>
>