Re: [PATCH 2/6] conf, log: Introduce internal log flags, instead of abusing log levels

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:39:13 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 02:03:15PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > We currently use a LOG_EMERG log mask to represent the fact that we
> > don't know yet what the mask resulting from configuration should be,
> > before the command line is parsed.
> > 
> > However, we have the necessity of representing another phase as well,
> > that is, configuration is parsed but we didn't daemonise yet, or
> > we're not ready for operation yet. The next patch will add that
> > notion explicitly.
> > 
> > Mapping these cases to further log levels isn't really practical.
> > Introduce internal log flags to represent them, instead of abusing
> > log priorities.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>  
> 
> I like not abusing the log priorities.  But, do we actually need a
> flags field with constants and helpers, rather than just
> 	bool log_conf_parsed;
> and open code it from there?

Right, we probably don't need a flags field. I went this way because I
thought I needed more than two flags, originally, but I can't see that
happening after all, so I'll switch to two boolean flags.

-- 
Stefano