On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Dylan Baker <baker.dyla...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:59:20 AM Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Dylan Baker <baker.dyla...@gmail.com> >> > + if not self._last_message: >> > + # We need to ensure that there is something in dmesg to check >> > + # timestamps. >> > + raise DmesgError( >> > + "Your dmesg ringbuffer is empty, so it's not possible to >> > check " + "for timestamp support. Try adding something to >> > dmesg by " + "writing /dev/kmsg. ex `echo 'foo' >> >> > /dev/kmsg") >> TBH, I'm not a fan of that -- doing "dmesg -c" isn't such an uncommon >> thing. Printing out a warning is fine (and then erroring out when >> things don't pan out), but I dunno about making it a hard requirement >> to have something in dmesg. >> > > Yeah, I'm not super happy with it either. I just don't see anywhere in the > actually called methods we can bail out without having unexpected results > first, without doing something as awful as a check for timestamps in > dmesg_update(), which would lead to a bad performance hit. Any suggestions?
Print a warning and let things fail as they go? I prefer to allow people to shoot themselves in the foot. Also what will _actually_ fail? The timestamp isn't parsed anywhere, the only thing that'll go wrong is that some dmesg errors might not get picked up if they're overly repetitive. -ilia _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
