On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 12:17:49AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Lennart Poettering
> <mzerqung(a)0pointer.de> wrote:
> > We can meet in the middle and make this LOG_NOTICE. That's not the
> > usual LOG_INFO, but also not the higher LOG_WARNING.
> Just to verify: I assume you mean that the killing of these processes
> would normally emit a "LOG_NOTICE". message.
Do I understand correctly that KillUserProcesses is meant to be a safety
net to catch processes that should have terminated when the user logged
out, but failed to do so?
Yes, we usually expect user processes to exit on their
it's quite likely that this kind of mistake will happen quite
often. Also, some users might simply take advantage of the fact that
this safety net is present and leave processes around. Either way,
it's not very clearly cut, and logging at error level would probably
be quite annoying.
But adjusting the log level is a very simple change, so we can start
at notice level (which by default will end up in logs, but will not be
too obnoxious), and adjust up (if in the common case we get no output)
or down (if in the common case we get too many logs).