[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [lvm-devel] [PATCH 1/4] Move guts of pvcreate into library area - prep for vgcreate.

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 09:57:47AM -0500, Dave Wysochanski wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 04:26 +0000, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> > I'm a bit bothered that too much code may be getting dumped into the library here
> > wholesale rather than getting broken up into separate calls.
> > 
> > - I don't think the library should be prompting, that should remain at tools level
> > and the interface should allow for that.
> > -- maybe yes_no_prompt needs some global mode (anaconda would set) to control
> > whether it does anything or simply defaults to the value given in an additional
> > parameter 
> Why global mode - why not just set 'force' and '-y' for the API call?  I
> think this was similar to Thomas's argument - he always envisioned '-ff'
> and '-y' on things like pvcreate.
> To be specific, in pvcreate we prompt if:
> 1) the device is already a PV
> 2) we find an MD superblock
> (and of course the user has not given the '-ff' and '-y')

To clarify: I mentioned two possible ways to proceed there.

1) no prompting in the library (which was my original intention)
=> library calls are split at appropriate places
In your example above, this would mean separate calls for the validation
functions (which anaconda would also call) prior to the call
that actually makes the change (which would not repeat the validation).

2) prompting within the library, with a guaranteed way for a caller
to avoid it (e.g. a global setting that defaults to returning with
an error whenever there would otherwise have been a prompt).
In the pvcreate example, it would avoid returning with an error because when
the equivalent of -ff and -y are given there would not be a prompt.
agk redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]