On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:54:14PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2016-12-08 12:20, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 01:35:20PM -0500, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >> Currently, `btrfs device stats` returns non-zero only when there was an
> >> error getting the counter values. This is fine for when it gets run by a
> >> user directly, but is a serious pain when trying to use it in a script or
> >> for monitoring since you need to parse the (not at all machine friendly)
> >> output to check the counter values.
> >>
> >> This patch adds an option ('-s') which causes `btrfs device stats`
> >> to set bit 6 in the return code if any of the counters are non-zero.
> >> This greatly simplifies checking from a script or monitoring software if
> >> any errors have been recorded. In the event that this switch is passed
> >> and an error occurs reading the stats, the return code will have bit
> >> 0 set (so if there are errors reading counters, and the counters which
> >> were read were non-zero, the return value will be 65).
> >
> > So a typical check in a script would look for either 64 or 65 returned
> > from the command, I don't think we can do it simpler. The option naming
> > is a bit confusing to me, as it duplicates the 'stats' from the command
> > itself. I'd suggest to use '--check' instead, does it sound OK to you?
> >
> > I'll apply the patch as-is for now (and maybe do some cleanups in the
> > surrounding code).
> >
> Yeah, --check is fine. Like I said, I'm not too picky about the name as
> long as it works.
Thanks. Changed to -c and added the long option --check for that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
