Renee Danson Sommerfeld wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 02:24:19PM +0100, Alan Maguire wrote: > >> hi folks >> >> In investigating defects 10123 (stopping manual locations >> produces unexpected events) and 10978 (nwamadm report >> "incorrect" state) I've been left wondering if we should >> really fail state changes which are redundant. At present, >> if an already-enabled object is enabled, we >> get an "entity is in use" error, while if we try to disable >> an already-disabled object, we get an "invalid state" >> error. This is inconsistent with SMF which allows enable >> requests to succeed even if the object is already enabled. >> >> I'm proposing that we change this so that such >> redundant requests do not trigger an error, and >> that we get rid of the NWAM_ENTITY_INVALID_STATE >> error code (since it's only used in this scenario). Does >> this sound reasonable? Thanks! >> > > I'm assuming that enabling an enabled object, or disabling > a disabled object, would result in a no-op? yep - we just return success. > If so, than I > do think that's the optimal behavior. > > However, we also need to weigh the practical question: what > code change is involved in making this change? > > it's a couple of lines in libnwam (instead of returning INVALID_STATE or ENTITY_IN_USE we return SUCCESS), and changing this will contribute towards fixing a few bugs, so I think it's worthwhile.
Alan
