httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Poirier <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] LogLevel refactoring part 1
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:39:13 GMT
On Wed, Feb  3, 2010, at 03:22:21 AM, Stefan Fritsch <> wrote:

> ap_log_error_wrapper.diff:
> On C99 compilers, avoid argument setup and function call overhead if 
> the log message will be discarded anyway. Also allow to disable higher 
> loglevels at compile time by defining APLOG_MAX_LOGLEVEL.
> On pre-C99 compilers, it should just work like before.

This seems like a reasonable thing to do.  I can't comment on the
correctness, not being up on C99.  

Is there some server coding convention calling for trailing _ and __ on
the macro and function names?  If not, my personal preference would be
something more meaningful when reading the code.

I'd love to know difference this makes in processor usage under load,
between running with loglevel debug and something lower.  Saving a
function call for every logging line on the main path could be a big

> loglevel_trace.diff:
> Introduce additional log levels trace1 ... trace8 above the debug 
> level.

If we're thinking about expanding control of debug messages, my
inclination would be to work toward allowing independent control of
messages from different parts of the code or about different things,
rather than a strict series of increasing levels of logging.  E.g. maybe
today I'd like to see all debug trace from authentication, but tomorrow
just see SSL stuff.


View raw message