Ethan Quach wrote: > > Tim Knitter wrote: >> >> Ethan Quach wrote: >>> >>> Tim Knitter wrote: >>>> >>>> Ethan Quach wrote: >>>>> Tim, >>>>> >>>>> be_mount.c: >>>>> --------------- >>>>> 1556-1563 - is this chunk really necessary? The printed debug >>>>> message at 1564 >>>> I wouldn't say necessary but I would say better since the whole >>>> reason for doing this is to give the user a nice message. >>> I don't see how its better, its just redundant. So in debug mode, >>> when we hit >>> this error, with your changes we get: >>> >>> umount_shared_fs: insufficient permissions <mountpoint>: permission >>> denied >>> umount_shared_fs: failed to unmount shared file system <mountpoint>: >>> permission denied >>> >>> >>> How is that better? If you're worried about what gets returned to >>> the caller (and >>> ultimately beadm), then the errno_to_be_err() call at 1569 sets ret to >>> BE_ERR_PERM or some such anyway. >>> >> Your right. Once I made the following change suggested by Evan, that >> chunk is no longer needed: >> >> 1569 ret = errno_to_be_err(err); >> >> I removed the chunk, tested and updated the webrev. > > The only thing left that I can see that might make a difference is at > 1569, instead of setting ret, just return ret there. That way when we > loop around and try to umount some other shared file system, ret won't > be masked with an EBUSY or something like that. >
Oh right. I initially had it returning on the first occurrence. I also added a catch for BE_ERR_ACCESS in beadm.py for all the subcommands. webrev updated and code tested. Thanks Tim > > thanks, > -ethan > > >> Thanks >> Tim >> >>> -ethan >>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
