10/03/2021 13:19, Bruce Richardson: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:31:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > The parsing check for invalid log level was not trying to catch > > irrelevant numeric values. > > A log level 0 or too high is now a failure in options parsing > > so it can be caught early. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > One thing I'd note here is that our log range of 1 to 8 is a little > strange, and that it would be nice if we could accept 9 as a valid log > level too on the cmdline. Ideally 0 would also be acceptable, for all > logging off, but it's more likely that people want to up the log level than > reduce it, and 9 is a more expected max value than 8.
Why 9 is more expected? Note that log level numbers are old-school, now we can use symbolic names ;)
