Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress

From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Date: May 10, 2007, 13:46 UTC
Message-ID: <20070510134622.GN13655@mellanox.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0705100633t61ac0309jfc8536b30244adf6@mail.gmail.com>

Show 14 quoted lines

> Quoting Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>:
> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] connect: display connection progress
> 
> On 5/10/07, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> >> >> What addresses were tried by connect?
> >> >
> >> >You are speaking about your patch reporting the IP on failure?
> >>
> >> Yes. Not on failure (not only). Every time an address is tried
> >> to connect.
> >
> >Why not only on failure? IP addresses look ugly.
> 
> So you can see DNS problems you wanted to uncover.

I really just wanted git to tell me what it's doing, so that I know it's not actually blocked on network, not doing any work.

> DNS is all about mapping names to that ugly IP.

Yes, but so far git port does not seem to be commonly open on random IPs ;).

> And DNS _problems_ often manifest themselves
> by mapping the name to an unexpected IP.

> Now that's really ugly

So, let's print the IP if -v is set? Oh, look, now we'll have NET_QUIET NET_VERBOSE

Show 12 quoted lines

> >> >I think it makes sense, but it's a separate issue, isn't it?
> >>
> >> You are just about to make git_tcp_connect verbose,
> >> are you not?
> >
> >Only if the flag is set. So git-fetch without -q qill be more verbose -
> >but it already spits out a fair amount of data on screen.
> 
> And so you added some more? Does not sound logical.
> 
> How about cleaning up this (reduce the amount of date
> on screen)

Isn't this why we have -q?

> and adding another verbosity level (with your
> messages and IP) instead?

What, yet another flag? Nooooooo

-- 
MST