On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Alan Robertson wrote: > David Lee wrote: > > [...] > > So the question is what _should_ be happening here? Is the ":1" in the > > invocation correct, or tolerable, or incorrect? Should that ":1" be in > > the "findif" invocation at all? If it is invoked with ":1" nomenclature, > > what _should_ "findif" do when "le0" exists, but the ":1" variant doesn't? > > > > Put another way: is the wrong behaviour somehow (how?) within "findif", > > or in its invocation? > > The original purpose of findif was to locate an interface. I'm pretty > sure that the :number part is incorrect in its invocation - since that > implies that you already have a specific interface in mind.
Thanks. I suspected that was the case. I have just applied a CVS patch to detect this within heartbeat/findif.c and to issue a warning (but continue). Feel free to upgrade that to a hard error (and fail). Now we need to investigate why the ":number" is included in the invocation in the first place (at least on the Solaris instances I've looked at; does it also happen in Linux?). -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. : _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
