[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 17:54:50 +0100
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: lkrg-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: module loading / systemd bug report / suggestion / my Debian packaging rationale
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:43:00PM +0000, Patrick Schleizer wrote:
> As for the default loglevel:
>
> I don't see why the loglevel should be set through either /etc/sysctl.d
> and/or a systemd unit file to loglevel 3 when running "make install" or
> when using the Debian package. In case of the Debian package, that
> "seems" like me downstream making that decision.
>
> Since you're upstream, it's perfectly fine to decide "default loglevel
> 3" in the source code? Then users could lower it using sysctl easily.
> then there wouldn't be need for the systemd unit file to set it to
> loglevel 3. (As the LKRG progresses, you might want to change the
> default hardcoded in the source code, which is fine too.)
I agree. I also found it weird that our hard-coded default log level is
different from our default log level for installs with systemd. We
should use consistent settings in all of: source code, configs, scripts,
and documentation. And the simplest way to do it is to use only our
hard-coded default, dropping the log level overrides from elsewhere -
except possibly for including examples of how a user can do this.
> (I don't argue against user's possibility to change loglevels through
> sysctl / /etc/sysctl.d. That's a great feature.)
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
