On 2006-06-15T03:20:24, linux-ha-cvs@lists.linux-ha.org wrote:
> linux-ha CVS committal
>
> Author : sunjd
> Host :
> Project : linux-ha
> Module : lib
>
> Dir : linux-ha/lib/fencing
>
>
> Modified Files:
> stonithd_lib.c
>
>
> Log Message:
> tweaking logs; add more check for ipc functions
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvs/linux-ha/linux-ha/lib/fencing/stonithd_lib.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.23
> retrieving revision 1.24
> diff -u -3 -r1.23 -r1.24
> --- stonithd_lib.c 1 Jun 2006 06:22:33 -0000 1.23
> +++ stonithd_lib.c 15 Jun 2006 09:20:23 -0000 1.24
> @@ -820,10 +832,14 @@
> stdlib_log(LOG_DEBUG, "%s = %s.", field_name2, tmpstr);
> rc= TRUE;
> } else {
> - stdlib_log(LOG_DEBUG, "no field %s.", field_name2);
> + stdlib_log(LOG_NOTICE, "filed <%s> content is <%s>"
> + , field_name2
> + , (NULL == tmpstr) ? "NULL" : tmpstr);
> }
> } else {
> - stdlib_log(LOG_DEBUG, "No field %s", field_name1);
> + stdlib_log(LOG_NOTICE, "filed <%s> content is <%s>"
> + , field_name1
> + , (NULL == tmpstr) ? "NULL" : tmpstr);
> }
These two trigger for _every_ op performed, including "monitor". That's,
uhm, quite cluttering the logs:
Jun 16 16:25:44 xen-4 lrmd: [3133]: notice: filed <apirpl> content is <raopret>
Is that really necessary?
(Besides the log being exactly the same for both cases, I wonder whether
they should be somehow differentiated?)
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée
--
High Availability & Clustering
SUSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
