Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221012111025.30609-1-james.clark@arm.com> <62f485df-4f5e-64a2-1294-6e162de25556@arm.com>
 <CAM9d7cgNrZ6iwRQsGHWGLWCd7cJm+L6UOU9BiGGgTVPdJ0_GJQ@mail.gmail.com> <e0b47b51-87f0-42db-4a76-b240bf07cd41@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0b47b51-87f0-42db-4a76-b240bf07cd41@arm.com>
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 13 Oct 2022 09:57:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM9d7cg+tTw5vTOycqRciQx8He-WLG0TSdcWa0tyzeu49DmgxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix "Track with sched_switch" test by not printing
 warnings in quiet mode
To:     James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:12 AM James Clark <james.clark@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/10/2022 17:50, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 4:13 AM James Clark <james.clark@arm.com> wrote:
> >>> The test already supplies -q to run in quiet mode, so extend quiet mode
> >>> to perf_stdio__warning() and also ui__warning() for consistency.
> >
> > I'm not sure if suppressing the warnings with -q is a good thing.
> > Maybe we need to separate warning/debug messages from the output.
>
> I don't see the issue with warnings being suppressed in quiet mode as
> long as errors are still printed. In other cases warnings have already
> been suppressed by quiet mode and this site is the odd one out.
>
> What use case are you thinking of where someone explicitly adds -q but
> wants to see non fatal warnings?

I don't have any specific use case.  If it's already suppressed in other
cases, I'm fine with it.

Thanks,
Namhyung