----- "Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues" <lmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 11:15 -0700, Martin Bligh wrote: > > if it's specific to one test or whatever, you could also just put > it inside the message? No, because the test's 'shortname' contains both the test type and some minimal information about the configuration in which it is run. For example, scsi.smp2.Fedora.8.32.boot, is the KVM 'boot' test run with Fedora.8.32, with 2 VCPUs and a scsi drive, and with the rest of the parameters set to their most common values (e.g. the image format is qcow2 unless otherwise stated, the NIC is the default rtl8139...). 'boot' alone is not very informative. > > Possibly with your own wrapper function around the logging? > > Yes, it's a possibility, but I'd rather avoid it. IMHO the current > logging configuration is a good compromise between verbosity and the > ability to debug problems on our code. I would very much like to see the test name, the caller name and the time in the logs. The KVM test is much more complex than other Autotest tests and thus requires (in my opinion) more verbose logging. This seems very reasonable to me. I personally find the logs produced by the new logger after the merge very difficult to read, and even more difficult to debug. Since the logging module seems to support most or all of what we need, I see no reason not to use our own logging config file or our own Handler and Formatter in the KVM test. I too would rather not resort to wrapper functions. > -- > Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues > Software Engineer (QE) > Red Hat - Emerging Technologies -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
