Re: [PATCH] RHEL 5.3 #468431 - assure consistency of VG to be removed

[Radek Vykydal <rvykydal redhat com>]

Joel Granados wrote:
> The only thing that scares me about this patch is the chance that anaconda will traceback on one of those vgremove or lvremove where otherwise it would have continued on its marry way.
>
>   
Yep, that scared me too, but we are already calling lvm.lvremove and 
lvm.vgremove without
catching exceptions in doMetaDeletes which has got some hard testing 
already I think,
so I decided not to catch.
> OTOH, if we fail on either one of those we will probably see some other issue further on.  And its probably a good idea to see the traceback sooner than later.  From this point of view it seems OK to me.
>
>   
Another argument for not catching is that if we traceback on next lvm 
call, lvmout contains
no valuable info, but I admit, this argument is weak and should be 
solved by improving
lvmout logging (e.g. as proposed in my Note in root of the thread).

Radek