Re: lirc 0.10
Alec Leamas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.hardware.lirc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 07/06/17 16:46, Piotr Oniszczuk wrote: > Alec, > One thing i don't get: > In syslog I see: > > Jun 7 11:27:03 (none) local0.notice lircd-0.10.0-devel[4666]: Notice: > System info: Linux FE-Sleepingroom 4.11.3 #1 SMP Tue Jun 6 21:29:43 CEST > 2017 x86_64 GNU/Linux > [cut] > > I see log level: Info. > > In syslog then I see however flood of: > > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) local0.notice lircd-0.10.0-devel[4714]: Notice: > accepted new client on /var/run/lirc/lircd > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) user.debug irsend: lirc_command_run: Sending: > SEND_ONCE Samsung_UE40C5000 tv_vol+ > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) user.debug irsend: lirc_command_run, state: 0, > input: "BEGIN" > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) user.debug irsend: lirc_command_run, state: 1, > input: "SEND_ONCE Samsung_UE40C5000 tv_vol+" > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) user.debug irsend: lirc_command_run, state: 2, > input: "SUCCESS" > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) user.debug irsend: lirc_command_run, state: 3, > input: "END" > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) user.notice irsend: lirc_command_run: data:END, > status:0 > Jun 7 11:29:59 (none) user.debug irsend: lirc_command_run: Sending: [cut] > this output looks to me like debug level output. > In lirc_client.c sources i see L:225 > > <------><------>logprintf(LIRC_DEBUG, > <------><------><------> "lirc_command_run, state: %d, input: \"%s\"\n", > <------><------><------> state, string ? string : "(Null)"); > > so this should be effective when loglevel is DEBUG. > but lirc statrtup reports I have loglevel INFO > > Do I miss something or loglevel isn't correctly propagated to lircclient? "Correctly" isn't really the proper term here. The irsend logging is completely independent of lircd; lircclient does not forward the loglevel. Other applications have separate ways to define the loglevel using a command line option plus a chain of default values. However, for some reason this is missing for irsend. Filing a bug on this might be a good idea. Adding a way to forward the lircd loglevel to lircclient might be an other idea, for sure All this said, the current behaviour is as expected. Cheers! --alec ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot