"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com> wrote on 03/17/2010 11:00:26 AM:
Please respond to "Daniel P. Berrange"
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
"Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com> wrote on 03/17/2010 10:40:36 AM:
I hadn't thought about calling that function... I would want to call a
function that can handle something like bash scripts, i.e., multiple concatenated fragments as those shown above just to be more 'efficient'.
Is it really more efficient ? If you need to run 20 ebtables commands, then using bash does 1 fork/exec for bash & bash then does another 20 fork/exec for ebtables.
Alternatively just use virRun() for each ebtables command you just still have 20 fork/execs, without using bash.
If virRun() can handle that and $? for example would be treated there as the return value (which I think is bash-dependent), I'd be happy to call it as well.
I'd think just call virRun once for each ebtables command - virRun gives you back the exit status of the command
Alright. Would it be ok to still gather the ebtables commands as I do now and afterwards process them in a loop that searches for a '\n' between the commands and, depending on whether a STOPONERROR token would be found following a command, would terminate the loop on error and return the error code. For some commands that are being executed I may actually tolerate error codes in case for example a user-define ebtables table is cleared that doesn't exist, but to get the system into an expected clean state, it's cleared anyways. In that case no or a different token would be found. Regards, Stefan
Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o-
http://people.redhat.com/berrange/:|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org:| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/:| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|