On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:04:06PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > These values were parsed but ignored using ignore_value(), leading >> > to very incomplete data when the data from pci.ids/usb.ids is used. >> > As generally this data is complemented by <device> nodes in >> > libosinfo database, and as this data takes precedence over >> > the pci.ids/usb.ids data, this is not visible without removing >> > the additional <device> data. >> >> Are you using 'this data' to refer to different data in the same >> sentence or am I getting confused for no reason? > > Yup, my bad, I'll have to remove some uses of data ;) > > These values were parsed but ignored using ignore_value(), leading > to very incomplete device information when using pci.ids/usb.ids. > As generally this data comes from <device> nodes in > libosinfo database, which takes precedence over > the pci.ids/usb.ids data, this is not visible without removing > the additional <device> data from the osinfo database. > > Is the log better phrased this way or does this need more improvement? So if I understand correctly, you are saying that data from pci.ids/usb.ids get over written by data from database in general but sometimes the same data is not provided by db and in those cases this data gets used? If that is the case, I think the log is still a bit ambiguous as the last part/sentence is not referring to any problem but it sounds like it is. > Christophe -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
