Hi, Daniel
Thank you for your comment and code review.
> > But since the patch is relatively simple based on
existing virsh logging
> > code, I think this could go as a command line option for virsh, for example
> > --log filename
> > where the detailed logs can then be saved if needed when a problem occurs.
> > I think this would avoid the main drawbacks of your proposed patch.
>
> I agree about a command line option.
> So, I remaked the patch which --log option is added for virsh.
> How about this one?
I guess you still think of a single log file shared by multiple virsh run,
and honnestly I think this adds way too much complexity and is not really
useful. You have one log file per virsh run. It's the responsability of the
user to pick a log file name. Trying to reinvent syslog at the level of virsh
does not sounds right to me, or rather it makes what should be a small patch
something really complex instead, I am not sure it is worth it.
Okey, I corrected all review point.
[...]
I expect the use to be the following:
- users uses virsh for virtualization operation
- something suddenly does not work
- then he re-runs the command with logging
- then he can analyze the log or transmit it to a sysadmin who
can have a look
but I don't believe in reimplementing something like syslog within virsh to
log all operations all the time, especially with a fixed size buffer. logs
will be intermixed, hard to process, add a burden on the server, and makes
the code way more complex than it needs to be.
Maybe I didn't understood how you expected logging to work, but apparently
we had different viewpoints, I would rather go for the simplest,
I agree.
does that still work for your use case ?
Yes.
How about this attached patch?
Signed-off-by: Nobuhiro Itou <fj0873gn(a)aa.jp.fujitsu.com>
Thanks,
Nobuhiro Itou.