<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - Do not parse "debug" command line parameter" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c27">Comment # 27</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - Do not parse "debug" command line parameter" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935">bug 76935</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:anonymous@dodgeit.com" title="Anonymous Helper <anonymous@dodgeit.com>"> Anonymous Helper</a> <pre>(In reply to <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=76935#c22">comment #22</a>) > There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding here. systemd has used > "debug" to set its own level to debug for quite some time, at least v208, > which is from mid-2013. > > The issue causing the acute pain was an broken assertion, a bug that should > have been fixed before the thread on LKML even started. No one claimed that > assertion failure wasn't a bug, and no one hesitated to fix it (see comment > #17). So, "debug" should already be usable without also setting > systemd.log_level, which should have fully worked around the issue even with > the assertion bug. > > In short, if everything was fine for you as of weeks or months ago, it > should already be back to being fine. > > The question now is the semantics of the kernel command line, specifically > the scope which "debug" affects. I've personally given the +1 to Greg's > patch, which would switch it to "systemd.debug", but there isn't consensus > to do that. > > The primary argument against the namespacing is catering to end users trying > to troubleshoot who are unfamiliar with the kernel/udev/systemd split of > responsibilities. Obviously, the counter-argument is to namespace in order > to fully isolate systemd's debug mode from the kernel's (without requiring > systemd.log_level) and avoid a similar assertion bug affecting developers > the same way. > > Because this is now a discussion about what *intended* functionality should > be, most discussion is happening on the mailing list in the thread started > by Greg's patch. I encourage you to post there if you would like to > contribute. If you're merely going to flame, especially in a way showing > that you don't understand the assertion fix vs. debug option distinction, > then please find somewhere else to post outside of systemd Bugzilla and the > mailing list. Thank you for being sane and stating the true situation clearly. As has been said on LKML, if Kay wasn't being a dick and had merely stated the broken assertion was a known and resolved issue, there would not have been any problem. It was the attitude in his response that has made so many in the community finally stand up and tell Kay (and Lennart) to simply fuck off for good.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>