10/03/2021 13:19, Bruce Richardson:

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:31:10AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:

quoted

The parsing check for invalid log level was not trying to catch
irrelevant numeric values.
A log level 0 or too high is now a failure in options parsing
so it can be caught early.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Monjalon <redacted>

One thing I'd note here is that our log range of 1 to 8 is a little
strange, and that it would be nice if we could accept 9 as a valid log
level too on the cmdline. Ideally 0 would also be acceptable, for all
logging off, but it's more likely that people want to up the log level than
reduce it, and 9 is a more expected max value than 8.

Why 9 is more expected?

Note that log level numbers are old-school,
now we can use symbolic names ;)