On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Hirokazu Honda <hiroh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I completely understand bitmask method now. > I agree to the idea, but it is necessary to change the specification of > a debug parameter. > (We probably need to change a document about that?) > For example, there is maybe a user who set a debug parameter 3. > The user assume that logs whose levels are less than 4 are shown. > However, after the bitmask method is adopted, someday the logs whose > level is 1 or 2 are only shown, not 3 level logs are not shown. > This will be confusing to users. I think I have to agree with Hirokazu here. Even though it's only about debugging, there might be some automatic testing systems that actually rely on certain values here. It probably shouldn't be considered hard ABI, but that still could be a significant annoyance for everyone. However, one could add this in an incremental way, i.e. add a new debug_mask parameter that would be used by dprinkt(), while making the original debug parameter simply update the debug_mask whenever it's changed. I still think that it should be made with a separate patch, though, as adjusting the levels and changing the filtering method are orthogonal. Best regards, Tomasz
