Re: [PATCH v6 06/11] printk: console: Introduce sysfs interface for per-console loglevels

[Petr Mladek]

On Wed 2024-11-20 05:01:47, Chris Down wrote:
> Thanks for looking this over :-) All not mentioned points in this reply are
> acked.
> 
> Greg Kroah-Hartman writes:
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-console b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-console
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..40b90b190af3
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-console
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
> > > +What:		/sys/class/console/
> > > +Date:		October 2024
> > 
> > It's no longer October 2024 :(

I am not sure what people do. But I suggest to use whatever is the
actual month. I could update it when pushing the patch.


> What would you recommend? When I sent them it was, and it doesn't seem
> realistic to think that it's going to be less than one month from me sending
> the patches to when it gets merged, no?
> 
> > > +What:		/sys/class/console/<C>/loglevel
> > > +Date:		October 2024
> > > +Contact:	Chris Down <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > +Description:	Read write. The current per-console loglevel, which will take
> > > +		effect if not overridden by other non-sysfs controls (see
> > > +		Documentation/admin-guide/per-console-loglevel.rst). Bounds are
> > > +		0 (LOGLEVEL_EMERG) to 8 (LOGLEVEL_DEBUG + 1) inclusive. Also
> > > +		takes the special value "-1" to indicate that no per-console
> > > +		loglevel is set, and we should defer to the global controls.
> > 
> > -1 is odd, why?  That's going to confuse everyone :(
> 
> I originally had it that you had to send "unset" instead of -1, but in
> discussion with Petr it was suggested to change it to -1.
>
> Petr, what do you think?

I personally prefer -1. It is a number attribute. And I think that -1
is self explanatory enough.

Best Regards,
Petr