On 07/25/2011 06:18 PM, Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Tiago Vignatti
wrote:
Three level of messages are possible, which are sent to syslog: WL_INFO,
WL_WARNING and WL_ERROR; the last two are printed also to stderr due
sanity. The only interface for the compositor an
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Tiago Vignatti
wrote:
> Three level of messages are possible, which are sent to syslog: WL_INFO,
> WL_WARNING and WL_ERROR; the last two are printed also to stderr due
> sanity. The only interface for the compositor and clients is
>
> void wl_log(int level, cons
On 07/23/2011 01:32 AM, Christian Hergert wrote:
Can syslog() potentially block? If so, that might be an issue of
concern. I don't think it is, at least officially stated, that
syslog() is re-entrant safe (which may be of concern with regard to
how signals are handled).
well, this depends the
On 07/23/2011 12:34 AM, Marty Jack wrote:
The primary reason you wouldn't use syslog to log user messages is that it
opens the possibility for an unprivileged user process to maliciously consume
the root partition. Logging to the equivalent of ~/.Xsession-errors is the
right way to go becau
