On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 07:59:10 -0500, John Ferlan wrote:
For case VIR_STORAGE_BLKID_PROBE_DIFFERENT, clean up the message to
avoid using the virsh like --overwrite syntax. Additionally provide
a different error message when not writing the label to avoid confusion.
Signed-off-by: John Ferlan <jferlan(a)redhat.com>
---
src/storage/storage_backend.c | 14 ++++++++++----
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/storage/storage_backend.c b/src/storage/storage_backend.c
index eebf039..c6a08eb 100644
--- a/src/storage/storage_backend.c
+++ b/src/storage/storage_backend.c
@@ -2808,10 +2808,16 @@ virStorageBackendBLKIDFindEmpty(const char *device,
break;
case VIR_STORAGE_BLKID_PROBE_DIFFERENT:
- virReportError(VIR_ERR_STORAGE_POOL_BUILT,
- _("Device '%s' formatted cannot overwrite using
'%s', "
- "requires build --overwrite"),
- device, format);
+ if (writelabel)
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_STORAGE_POOL_BUILT,
+ _("Device '%s' formatted cannot overwrite using
"
The beginning of the error message does not make sense.
+ "'%s', requires
create/build with overwrite flag"),
+ device, format);
+ else
+ virReportError(VIR_ERR_OPERATION_INVALID,
+ _("Format of device '%s' does not match expected
"
+ "format '%s', requires rebuild"),
I'd drop the "requires rebuild" part.
ACK