From nobody Sat May 22 05:28:08 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19608BC322 for ; Sat, 22 May 2021 05:28:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FnBp6423Sz4RVF; Sat, 22 May 2021 05:28:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 14M5S9si015728; Fri, 21 May 2021 22:28:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 14M5S8nh015727; Fri, 21 May 2021 22:28:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202105220528.14M5S8nh015727@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Reducing SIGINFO verbosity In-Reply-To: To: Warner Losh Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 22:28:08 -0700 (PDT) CC: Ceri Davies , Conrad Meyer , Michael Gmelin , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4FnBp6423Sz4RVF X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 7:38 AM Ceri Davies wrote: > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:57:17PM -0700, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > > No, I don?t think there?s any reason to default it differently on stable > > vs > > > current. I think it?s useful (and I prefer the more verbose form, which > > > isn?t the default). > > > > I agree that there's no reason for the default to be different, but I > > would say that it is much easier for someone who knows that there is a > > default to be changed to change it, than it is for someone who does not. > > Therefore, if the information is not useful to someone who does not know > > how to get rid of it, then it should default to not being displayed, > > IMHO. > > > > I plan on changing the default for non-INVARIANT kernels back to > the old behavior. > > INVARIANT kernels will keep this behavior because it's a debugging > kernel and this is one more thing to help debugging problems. This seems a good solution to me, thanks! > Warner -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org