On 10/22/2012 07:44 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 03:15 PM, Osier Yang wrote:
>> It reports error "roots and --from are exclusive" even "--current"
>> is specified with "--roots", but no "--from".
>> ---
>> tools/virsh-snapshot.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/virsh-snapshot.c b/tools/virsh-snapshot.c
>> index b828371..6dd8bf2 100644
>> --- a/tools/virsh-snapshot.c
>> +++ b/tools/virsh-snapshot.c
>> @@ -1197,7 +1197,8 @@ cmdSnapshotList(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
>> }
>> if (from) {
>> vshError(ctl, "%s",
>> - _("--roots and --from are mutually exclusive"));
>> + _("--roots is mutually exclusive with either "
>> + "--from or --current"));
>> goto cleanup;
>> }
>> flags |= VIR_DOMAIN_SNAPSHOT_LIST_ROOTS;
>>
>
> And is --from and --current also mutually exclusive?
--current implies a particular point to list from, so yes, mixing
--current and --from should error out, as should mixing --current and
--roots, so this is really just a bug in improving error message quality.
> If yes, wouldn't
> it be better to say something like: "--roots, --current and --from are
> mutually exclusive"? Or, similarly to the idea behind vshLookupSnapshot
>
> if (exclusive && current && snapname) {
> vshError(ctl, _("--%s and --current are mutually exclusive"), arg);
> return -1;
> }
>
> If it's not the case, than ACK.
Indeed, I think we can do better with a v2.
--
Eric Blake eblake@xxxxxxxxxx +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list