Hi Raoul, > does it hurt if we leave this patch in? i do not see any problem with > that code.
Even if you do not apply a patch even if you apply this patch, there is not the big problem. I am lacking in my explanation, and I'm sorry. Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi. --- On Wed, 2011/9/7, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] <[email protected]> wrote: > hi Hideo-san! > > On 09/07/2011 01:50 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >>> However, my patch made a mistake. > >>> > > I do not seem to get the result of postfix status. > >>> > > It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the > >>> >problem after all. > >>> > > > >>> > > Therefore, I withdraw the patch of the part of postfix status. > >>> > > > >>> > > diff -r 19c97e0021f0 postfix > >>> > > --- a/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:45:53 2011 +0900 > >>> > > +++ b/postfix Thu Jun 16 21:46:01 2011 +0900 > >>> > > @@ -98,12 +98,8 @@ > >>> > > postfix_running() { > >>> > > # run Postfix status if available > >>> > > if ocf_is_true $status_support; then > >>> > > - output=`$binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1` > >>> > > - ret=$? > >>> > > - if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then > >>> > > - ocf_log err "Postfix status: '$output'." $ret > >>> > > - fi > >>> > > - return $ret > >>> > > + $binary $OPTION_CONFIG_DIR status 2>&1 > >>> > > + return $? > >>> > > fi > >>> > > > >>> > > # manually check Postfix's pid > [...] > > I thought that output could acquire the details of the problem of "postfix > > status" with a former patch. > > And I thought the output of the details of the problem to be useful for an > > operator. > > However, the details of the problem only were really reflected on log of > > postfix in the environment that I tried. > > > > Therefore I want to withdraw the suggestion of the patch of this part. > > does it hurt if we leave this patch in? i do not see any problem with > that code. > > thanks, > raoul > _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
