23/03/2021 19:18, David Marchand: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:10 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote: > > 23/03/2021 14:37, David Marchand: > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 11:32 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The option --log-level was not completely described in the usage text, > > > > and it was difficult to guess the names of the log types and levels. > > > > > > > > A new value "help" is accepted after --log-level to give more details > > > > about the syntax and listing the log types and levels. > > > > > > > > The array "levels" used for level name parsing is replaced with > > > > a (modified) existing function which was used in rte_log_dump(). > > > > > > If we forget about the slightly different formatting, why not simply > > > reuse rte_log_dump? > > > It has the advantage of listing the default level for each logtype > > > that a user cannot guess otherwise. > > > > I considered rte_log_dump() too much verbose for the help text. > > It is printing the global level and the logtype ids. > > Yes, it gives all the info about the log subsystem. > > > The need for the end-user in the help is different of a debug dump. > > The result of rte_log_list_types is a list in link-time order. > At least it is worth sorting alphabetically for users.
Yes sorting could be nice. > What about default log levels? No strong opinion. The default is more or less always the same. If you believe it helps the user, then OK to add default levels.
