Hi, On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:18:29PM +0100, Bernd Schubert wrote: > On Monday, November 15, 2010, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > > > This may truncate entity, and of course breaks existing filtering > > > > setups that trigger on it. > > > > Right. So, this needs to be optional. > > Ok, any favourite option keyword in logd.cf? If it comes to me, the present > logd.cf *suggests* that not adding the commong log entity is a bug: > > <quote> > # Entity to be shown at beginning of a message > # for logging daemon > # Default: "logd" > entity logd > </quote> > > Was that option only for its own messages?
Yes, and the default in case the client didn't supply its entity. > Isn't that a bit over-due? I guess you meant overkill? Perhaps. > So maybe > "entity none" should suppress it in the future? We can't change the semantic. So, we need a new option name. extra_entity? common_entity? > > > > Are we sure that adding in the "cl_log_entity" to > > > > > > > > the "entity" is worth it? > > > > Alternatives (may be worse, I don't know): > > > > rather prepend it to the message? > > > > make sure cl_log_entity is very short? > > > > Or does it fit for all practical purposes, anyways? > > > > > > In loggingdaemon.h: > > > > > > /* Messages sent to the logging daemon */ > > > #define LD_LOGIT 2 > > > #define MAXENTITY 32 > > > > > > > > > I don't think there is a risk to get above that. But I have no objections > > > to increase it. > > > > Probably not though one never knows. > > Could you please clarify? My English fails here to get the meaning. I meant that 32 should be enough space, but I guess that there will be somebody with their giga-corporation-ultimate-cluster. I think that we should limit this new entity identifier. > > > As I wrote in the patch comment, filter rules based on localX are not > > > optimal and filtering on "localX *and* a-single-word" does not work, as > > > there is no common-log entity so far (I always found that quite > > > annoying). > > > > Don't worry, some will get annoyed by the new format. BTW, can > > you show what would a message look like? > > Nov 10 20:15:33 logd heartbeat: [96679]: info: glib: ucast: bound receive > socket to device: eth0 Cheers, Dejan > Thanks, > Bernd > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
