On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:03:35 +0200 Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> I find it a bit confusing that "quiet" would mean something different > on different systems. I disagree. "quiet" to me is for people that really don't care to see anything from the kernel except for real issues that they need to report. The first thing that I do, and many other kernel developers I know, when installing a new distro, is to remove the "quiet" from the command line. Because *I* care about the output. > > Why did not you use loglevel=<whatever_you_need> instead of "quiet"? > > Alternative solution would be to add "silent" or so to calm down > everything. But I am afraid that any change in this area would > just create a mess similar to grep -s and -q options. > > > Best Regards, > Petr > > PS: I will not block it if Steven and Sergey are fine with this. But > I want to be sure that they considered the above views. It looked like > a no-brainer to me at the beginning. I even pushed this to printk.git. > But the pushing gave me some more time to think about it... I prefer this patch over adding yet another kernel command line command that will just add to the confusion. I can imagine people saying "what's the difference between 'quiet' and 'silent'?". I would. I think having it as a config option is the perfect solution. I imagine that as soon as Red Hat changes the meaning of "quiet" so will all the other distros. The alternative is for the distros to add a patch to make the change, which honestly is a worse solution. I've only seen "quiet" added by distros and not by average developers. I don't think adding this option will be confusing to anyone that tinkers with kernel command lines anyway. I'm for the patch. Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rost...@goodmis.org> -- Steve
