"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 :|