Thanks!
I completely overlooked that -;
Shinobu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ilya Dryomov" <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Shinobu Kinjo" <skinjo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2015 5:52:50 PM
Subject: Re: [CEPH-DEVEL] [ceph-users] occasional failure to unmap rbd
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Shinobu Kinjo <skinjo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think it's more helpful to put returned value in:
>
> # ./src/krbd.cc
> 530 cerr << "rbd: sysfs write failed" << std::endl;
>
> like:
>
> 530 cerr << "rbd: sysfs write failed (" << r << ")" << std::endl;
>
> So that we exactly know what **write** complains about.
> Because **write** has some return values in case of error.
>
> What do you think?
It's already doing that:
rbd: sysfs write failed
rbd: unmap failed: (16) Device or resource busy
sysfs_write_rbd_remove() return value is propagated up and reported.
The code is written in such a way that return values are preserved and
never overwritten (hopefully!).
Thanks,
Ilya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
