Re: syslog_L 2

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> At 2002/3/25 21:27-0500  Joey Hess writes:
> > The test does a setlogmask(LOG_MASK(LOG_DEBUG|LOG_WARNING)). This does not
> > seem to be a valid way to call LOG_MASK in glibc; I don't know about POSIX.
> > glibc wants it to be called like this:
> > setlogmask(LOG_MASK(LOG_DEBUG)|LOG_MASK(LOG_WARNING))
> > 
> > Note that the log priorities are numbered, 0 through 7, and are so not
> > directly or'able. That's why LOG_MASK exists, no?
> > 
> 
> SUSv3 seems to imply that it is ok to use them directly or'able.  One
> of the examples does exactly that:
> 
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/toc.htm
> 
> So perhaps it is a glibc bug in defining them the way they have.

Changing this would be a real PITA as every program that uses syslog
would have to be recompiled.

I take it you mean this example:

  int mask = LOG_MASK (LOG_ERR | LOG_USER);
  ...
  result = setlogmask(mask);

I'm not sure what they're trying to do here, since LOG_USER is a
facility, not a priority level. Anyway, I don't see any examples that
show or'ing together of two priority levels.

-- 
see shy jo


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org