On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 20:30 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011, Guilherme Salgado wrote: > > My concern is that sfdisk -l returning non-zero may not be a very good > > indication that we should sleep. It will return non-zero on any error > > and I expect most errors to not go away after a 30 seconds sleep, in > > which case we'd be delaying l-m-c's exit unnecessarily. That may not be > > a big deal, though. > > Ah I see what you mean, for instance if the MMC is definitely dead and > wont ever come back, you'd like to be able to detect that. > > I don't know what to test for though: we just wrote a blank partition > table (parted mklabel msdos), and we're just trying sfdisk -l on it. > What test did you have in mind?
I didn't have anything in mind; just wanted to know what was the cause of the delay to see if there's anything we could use to identify failure modes which can be resolved with just a sleep. -- Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
