10/03/2021 14:26, Bruce Richardson: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 01:33:20PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 10/03/2021 13:19, Bruce Richardson: > > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:31:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > The parsing check for invalid log level was not trying to catch > > > > irrelevant numeric values. > > > > A log level 0 or too high is now a failure in options parsing > > > > so it can be caught early. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > > > > One thing I'd note here is that our log range of 1 to 8 is a little > > > strange, and that it would be nice if we could accept 9 as a valid log > > > level too on the cmdline. Ideally 0 would also be acceptable, for all > > > logging off, but it's more likely that people want to up the log level > > > than > > > reduce it, and 9 is a more expected max value than 8. > > > > Why 9 is more expected? > > > > Because a scale of 0-9 is more logical in the decimal system. > We could also generalize that any number >8 is just reduced to 8 and > we issue a warning and continue.
In this case, we should accept any high value, not limiting arbitrary to 9, and emit a warning.
