Joe Eykholt wrote:
> Love, Robert W wrote:
>> Joe Eykholt wrote:
>>> Robert Love wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2009-04-13 at 15:20 -0700, Joe Eykholt wrote:
>>>>> Robert Love wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> BTW, you could use grep -q instead of grep -c.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of:
>>>>>
>>>>> if [ `dcbtool gc ${IFNAME} app:0 | grep Enable | grep -c true`
>>>>> -ne 1 ] ; then
>>>>>
>>>>> do:
>>>>> if dcbtool gc ${IFNAME} app:0 | grep Enable | grep -q true ; then
>>>>>> ; else echo ...
>>>>>
>>>>> To further simplify (but possibly obscure):
>>>>>
>>>>> dcbtool gc ${IFNAME} app:0 | grep Enable | grep -q true || echo
>>>>> "not enabled ..."
>>>>>
>>>> I started coding this, but I don't think that I like it. This is
>>>> the DCB check, not app:0, but it's the syntax we're talking about.
>>>> I end up with-
>>>>
>>>> dcbtool gc ${IFNAME} dcb | grep 'DCB State' | grep -q on ||
>>>> ( echo "DCB is not on, exectue the following command to turn it on"
>>>> >&2 && echo "dcbtool sc ${IFNAME} dcb on" >&2 && failure=1
>>>> )
>>>>
>>>> (the line wrap is making this look a bit funky, the "&&" on line #3
>>>> should really be at the end of line #2)
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the shortcut use makes it any more readable since I
>>>> really want to do 3 things on the failure of my dcbtool output
>>>> greppping.
>>> Also, setting failure=1 in a subshell (in the parens) doesn't change
>>> the value in the parent shell, so that won't work.
>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> dcbtool gc ${IFNAME} dcb | grep 'DCB State' | grep -q on if [ $?
>>> -ne 0 ] then
>>> echo "DCB is not on, exectue the following command to turn it
>>> on"
>>> >&2 echo "dcbtool sc ${IFNAME} dcb on" >&2
>>> failure=1
>>> fi
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Joe
>>
>> Why run dcbtool/grep and then evaluate it's return value separately
>> instead of in the if [] condition itself?
>>
>> Right now I've got-
>>
>> # Determine if DCB is on
>> if dcbtool gc ${IFNAME} dcb | grep 'DCB State' | grep -q off ; then
>> echo "DCB is not on, exectue the following command to turn it
>> on" >&2 echo "dcbtool sc ${IFNAME} dcb on" >&2
>> ret=1
>> fi
>
> Because we want the opposite, and I couldn't figure out how to invert
> the return code neatly. Maybe use grep -v?
> My initial attempt did nothing in the then portion
> and did the rest of the work in the else.
>
> Joe
Well, I think that we'll either be "on" or "off" so we can just 'grep -q off'.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
