Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix "Track with sched_switch" test by not printing warnings in quiet mode

[James Clark]

On 13/10/2022 17:57, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:12 AM James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/10/2022 17:50, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:13 AM James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> The test already supplies -q to run in quiet mode, so extend quiet mode
>>>>> to perf_stdio__warning() and also ui__warning() for consistency.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if suppressing the warnings with -q is a good thing.
>>> Maybe we need to separate warning/debug messages from the output.
>>
>> I don't see the issue with warnings being suppressed in quiet mode as
>> long as errors are still printed. In other cases warnings have already
>> been suppressed by quiet mode and this site is the odd one out.
>>
>> What use case are you thinking of where someone explicitly adds -q but
>> wants to see non fatal warnings?
> 
> I don't have any specific use case.  If it's already suppressed in other
> cases, I'm fine with it.
> 

Actually I may have been mistaken. Seems like quiet is only used for
"extra info" type messages rather than warnings. Although the commit
message does say:

  The -q/--quiet option is to suppress any message. Sometimes users just
  want to see the numbers and it can be used for that case.

With 'any' that I would take to include warnings as well. I could move
warnings to stderr, but this has a much greater chance of breaking
anyone's workflows that might be looking for warnings on stdout than
removing warnings when -q is provided.

Also if warnings are moved to stderr and quiet isn't used, there would
be no way to suppress warnings in the TUI which might actually be a
useful feature.

So I'm still leaning towards the original change, if you are ok with
that even though it's not done elsewhere?

> Thanks,
> Namhyung