On 5/27/21 7:40 AM, Scott Mayhew wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2021, Steve Dickson wrote: >> If people are going to used the -C flag they are saying they want >> to ignore hung threads so I'm thinking with printerr(0) we would >> be filling up their logs about messages they don't care about. >> So I'm thinking we should change this to a printerr(1) > > Note that message could pop multiple times per thread even without the > -C flag because cancellation isn't immediate (a thread needs to hit a > cancellation point, which it won't actually do that until it comes back > from wherever it's hanging). My thinking was leaving it with > printerr(0) would make it blatantly obvious when something was wrong and > needed to be investigated. I have no issue with changing it to > printerr(1) though. It would... but I've craft the debugging for a single -v is errors only... Maybe I should mention that in the man page... And looking at what you mention in the man page for -C, it does say it will cause an error to be logged... So I guess it makes sense to leave it as is. > > Alternatively we could add another flag to struct upcall_thread_info to > ensure that message only gets logged once per thread. > I think it is good as is... >> >> Overall I think the code is very well written with >> one exception... The lack of comments. I think it >> would be very useful to let the reader know what >> you are doing and why.... But by no means is >> that a show stopper. Nice work! > > I can go back and add some comments. Well there aren't that many comments to begin with.... So you are just following the format... ;-) Don't worry about it... How I will finish my testing today... and do the commit with what we got.. Again... Nice work!! steved.
