Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH] Highlight ordering cycle deletions

2012-11-15 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
On 11/05/2012 12:28 AM, Olivier Brunel wrote:
> Having unit(s) removed/not started, even if it solved the issue and allowed
> to boot successfully, should still be considered an error, as something
> clearly isn't right.
> 
> This patch elevates the log message from warning to error, and adds a status
> message to make things more obvious.
Applied.

Zbyszek

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel


[systemd-devel] [PATCH] Highlight ordering cycle deletions

2012-11-04 Thread Olivier Brunel
Having unit(s) removed/not started, even if it solved the issue and allowed
to boot successfully, should still be considered an error, as something
clearly isn't right.

This patch elevates the log message from warning to error, and adds a status
message to make things more obvious.

Signed-off-by: Olivier Brunel 
---
 src/core/transaction.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/core/transaction.c b/src/core/transaction.c
index 4bce942..ee6992a 100644
--- a/src/core/transaction.c
+++ b/src/core/transaction.c
@@ -374,7 +374,8 @@ static int transaction_verify_order_one(Transaction *tr, 
Job *j, Job *from, unsi
 
 
 if (delete) {
-log_warning("Breaking ordering cycle by deleting job 
%s/%s", delete->unit->id, job_type_to_string(delete->type));
+log_error("Breaking ordering cycle by deleting job 
%s/%s", delete->unit->id, job_type_to_string(delete->type));
+status_printf(ANSI_HIGHLIGHT_RED_ON " SKIP " 
ANSI_HIGHLIGHT_OFF, true, "Ordering cycle found, skip %s", 
unit_description(delete->unit));
 transaction_delete_unit(tr, delete->unit);
 return -EAGAIN;
 }
-- 
1.8.0

___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel