On 07/10/2015 05:07 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> Commit ed8155eafbff5c5ca0bdfe84a8388f58b718c2f9 documented that
> mhz field in virNodeInfo might be 0 if the frequency is unknown. Modify
> virsh to know about that.
>
While 0 may be (or is) an invalid value would it perhaps be better to
document in virsh.pod rather than just not supply it? Or perhaps do
both? By just not supplying it could lead to the question of why is it
there for this architecture, but not the other.
Another option would be to print "(unknown)" rather than nothing (and of
course document it).
If you add some sort of documentation element to this, then I'm fine
with it. Maybe this'll cause others to provide feedback/thoughts too.
John
> Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/virsh-host.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virsh-host.c b/tools/virsh-host.c
> index 66f7fd9e62e4..7a223931b152 100644
> --- a/tools/virsh-host.c
> +++ b/tools/virsh-host.c
> @@ -606,7 +606,8 @@ cmdNodeinfo(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> }
> vshPrint(ctl, "%-20s %s\n", _("CPU model:"), info.model);
> vshPrint(ctl, "%-20s %d\n", _("CPU(s):"), info.cpus);
> - vshPrint(ctl, "%-20s %d MHz\n", _("CPU frequency:"), info.mhz);
> + if (info.mhz)
> + vshPrint(ctl, "%-20s %d MHz\n", _("CPU frequency:"), info.mhz);
> vshPrint(ctl, "%-20s %d\n", _("CPU socket(s):"), info.sockets);
> vshPrint(ctl, "%-20s %d\n", _("Core(s) per socket:"), info.cores);
> vshPrint(ctl, "%-20s %d\n", _("Thread(s) per core:"), info.threads);
>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list