On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 03:59, Michael Alger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 07:44:25PM -0600, Serge Dubrouski wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> A long story - a short patch :) and the morale: >>> always include a default clause for the switch statement >> >> Nope. There was a default for OCF_ERRARGS and I conidered that one >> as a correct one for umknown operations. Per my opinion >> OCF_ERR_UNIMPLEMNTED should be used for legal, i.e. defined by the >> OCF standard, operations only. > > That's understandable from just looking at the "names" of the error > codes (I made the same assumption), but the specification does make > it slightly clearer that the intention is for ERR_ARG (2) to > indicate a problem with the OCF parameters, not with the arguments > given to the script itself. > > It allows the resource script to differentiate between "I don't know > how to <foo>" and "I know how to <foo>, but I can't do it with the > parameters you gave me". > > At least, thats my current understanding of it.
correct. > > http://www.opencf.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/specs/ra/resource-agent-api.txt?rev=HEAD > (Section 3.6.1.) > > 0 No error, action succeeded completely > 1 Generic or unspecified error (current practice) > The "monitor" operation shall return this for a crashed, hung or > otherwise non-functional resource. > 2 Invalid or excess argument(s) > Likely error code for validate-all, if the instance parameters > do not validate. Any other action is free to also return > this exit status code for this case. > 3 Unimplemented feature (for example, "reload") > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-HA mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha > See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems > _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
