+1 from me On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 8:53 AM Matteo Golin <matteo.go...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 from me! > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025, 2:38 AM Michal Lenc <michall...@seznam.cz> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I've submitted pull request that changes setlogmask function behavior to > > the one expected by POSIX standard > > <https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16280>. The description of the > > change is provided in the mailing list, to summarize it, our > > implementation uses zero argument to set logging mask to zero and thus > > disable the logging at all. However, POSIX clearly states that passing > > zero argument should not modify the current logging mask, but just > > return the old one. We should change the behavior to comply with POSIX > > standards here. > > > > As Tomek suggested, we should vote here first, because this is a > > potential breaking change for existing applications. So let's vote > > for/against the change. > > > > It's also worth noting that POSIX probably (or at least I haven't found > > a way) doesn't allow to disable all logging at runtime, just to set the > > mask to the highest priority (lowest amount of messages, just emergency > > logs) with LOG_EMERG (or any other priority you want). Nevertheless, I > > consider the POSIX (and Linux) compatibility more important in this case > > and vote for the change. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Michal > > > > >
