From: Daniel P. B. <ber...@re...> - 2013-05-17 08:32:57
|
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On 05/13/2013 12:30 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <ber...@re...> > > > > Even with the -q flag specified, tracing output is still mixed > > with messages about signals and process exit status, which is > > often irrelevant. Allow the -q flag to be repeated to force > > the suppression of signals / exit status info too. > > I would say that this is a bit arbitrary to think > that signals are "not relevant". In many cases, > they are! If you're interested in signals, don't use this repeated -q arg to hide them. That's why I made this is a new option, rather than changing the semantics of the existing single -q arg usage. > The suppression done by -q was suppressing messages about > what _strace_ does, those messages had nothing to do with > _what happens to the traced process_. > > Your new addition suppressed signal delivery log messages, > and that is something which _does happen to the process_ > being traced. > > Also, your addition is unnecessary because "-e signal=!all" > does the same thing. That's rather obscure & verbose compared to just repeating the -q arg. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| |