2017-08-10 8:21 GMT+02:00 Michal Privoznik
<mprivozn(a)redhat.com>:
> On 08/09/2017 03:59 PM, Dominik Psenner wrote:
> > The error message could however give a hint what is going on. It should
> sax
> > that it is impossible to talk to libvirtd and that it might be stopped.
>
> [Please don't top post on technical lists]
> Yes and no. There can be a lot of reasons why client can't talk to
> daemon. They all don't demonstrate in local connection, but imagine
> talking to a daemon on distant host.
And suddenly somebody cuts the
> cable, or inserts incorrect firewall rules, etc. Suggesting that daemon
> is not running would be wrong in this case.
Actually, it would most probably be true in this case and still the most
probable cause if the communication went over a wire. Yes, it could be a
firewall issue but still it is more likely that the host or the service is
not up.
> Also, we tend to report
> system errors and leave mgmt application figure out how to deal with it.
> For instance:
>
>
http://libvirt.org/git/?p=libvirt.git;a=blob;f=tools/virsh.c;h=
> 94bb7ff6c93afa46d31d085eaa5e504f1cca7593;hb=HEAD#l90
Are you indicating that a user should have to read the sourcecode of
libvirt and libvirtd to understand their error messages? Please bear in
mind that we are humans that use a software and as such the software should
be written to be used by humans. I know very well that good error handling
is a tough task to achieve, but it is still worth the effort. I suggest
that the error message:
libvirt: XML-RPC error : Cannot write data: Broken pipe
should read as:
libvirt: Could not connect to the libvirtd service : Cannot write data:
Broken pipe
The code in question is used to communicate with *faaar* more than
just libvirtd, so such a change would be pretty misleading in
general.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: