On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 16:20:07 -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/30/2012 09:01 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
This command lists all disk devices with errors --- tools/virsh.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tools/virsh.pod | 7 ++++ 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) ... +static const vshCmdOptDef opts_domblkerror[] = { + {"domain", VSH_OT_DATA, VSH_OFLAG_REQ, N_("domain name, id, or uuid")}, + {NULL, 0, 0, NULL}
Should we also allow this additional usage:
virsh domblkerror dom vda
which lists the status of just vda (no error, no space left, ...)? That would mean adding:
{"disk", VSH_OT_DATA, VSH_OFLAG_OPT, N_("particular disk to check")}
then filtering through the libvirt API to match just that disk? You can say "no, that's overkill" and not implement it, and I won't be hurt.
I think grep/sed/awk and similar friends can do similar job here if anyone wants to get the error status of just one specific disk.
+ if ((count = virDomainGetDiskErrors(dom, disks, ndisks, 0)) == -1) + goto cleanup; + + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { + vshPrint(ctl, "%s: %s\n", + disks[i].disk, + vshDomainIOErrorToString(disks[i].error)); + }
Are we okay that if there are no disk errors (count is 0), we have no output, not even mentioning that the command succeeded?
I guess we are not and I changed that. I also made this command consistent with python API which reports no disk errors for domain without disks instead of complaining that the domain has no disks. Jirka