Alan Maguire writes: > Liane Praza wrote: > > It'd be good to have someone who's been in svccfg more recently than I > > look over this too. (Bustos? Tom?) > > > > Liane Praza wrote: > >> Alan Maguire wrote: > >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~amaguire/svccfg_refresh/ > >> > >> I'll look at it this afternoon. > > > > (Alan updated this to do the svcadm refresh as we discussed too.) > > > > svccfg_help.c: > > > > nit. Not really an either/or. Maybe: "Update the Running snapshot > > for the instance with the values from the current configuration. > > If svccfg is not operating on an alternate repository, also inform > > the restarter for the instance that the configuration has been > > updated." > > > > Or, less accurate/less pedantic, but more helpful?: "Update the > > Running snapshot for the instance with the values from the current > > configuration. If svccfg is not operating on an alternate > > repository, inform the restarter to invoke the instance's refresh > > method." > > > i went with the latter, as it seems more user-centric. > > svccfg_libscf.c > > > > l12335: I'd think calling lscf_prep_hndl() would be more appropriate > > than checking g_hndl. Is there a reason you didn't? > > > no reason, i've changed this. > > I found the switch working for both the refresh_entity() and > > take_snap() returns a little weird. At the least, it makes the > > bad_error() a lie. > > > i figured sharing the switch might make sense since the > functions share most of the same return values, but i've > split it into two separate switch statements now. > > thanks Liane (and Tom!) for taking a look. i've refreshed > the webrev, so let me know if there's anything else amiss. > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~amaguire/svccfg_refresh/ > > alan > _______________________________________________ > smf-discuss mailing list > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org
Your changes look good to me. tom
