--- On Wed, 7/9/08, Andrew Beekhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Or, in other words, are all 4 return codes necessary,
>> if all we want in all 4 cases is to trigger a hard reset ?
>
> programatically, not really.
> but if i'm an admin trying to figure out why the
> resource wont run on a given node anymore, i'm sure
> i'd appreciate them not being merged.
That I fully understand. But shouldn't these conditions be described
independently from the condition status, through, i.e. a condition code ?
> at any rate, these return codes are part of the OCF spec.
> we're just following it and indicating what type of
> recovery we do for each.
I also understand that and that's why I was precisely saying mixing a condition
with it's severity or it's handling was not a good idea for the reasons I
already gave.
Right now, the OCF return status code only uses 9 values out of 256 the return
status allows, or in other words 4 bits out of 8.
For an improved scheme, why not use the lower bits to describe the condition as
they are described today, with the exception of values 0 and 1 which describe
generic success and error codes, and the higher 4 bits to describe the severity
and handling ?
One can also imagine, if the high bits aren't used, use the current scheme, and
if the high bits are used using the improved scheme.
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
