[sheepdog] [PATCH] collie: print VIDs after various vdi operations

[Liu Yuan]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 04:06:50PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> At Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:08:27 +0800,
> Liu Yuan wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 11:28:05AM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> > > Priting VIDs after various operations by "collie vdi" is useful both
> > > for human administrators and software which wraps collie.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake.hitoshi at lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > > ---
> > >  collie/vdi.c |   43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > >  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/collie/vdi.c b/collie/vdi.c
> > > index 987be29..369315d 100644
> > > --- a/collie/vdi.c
> > > +++ b/collie/vdi.c
> > > @@ -609,6 +609,12 @@ static int vdi_create(int argc, char **argv)
> > >  	}
> > >  	show_progress(idx * SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE, inode->vdi_size);
> > >  	ret = EXIT_SUCCESS;
> > > +
> > > +	if (raw_output)
> > > +		printf("%x\n", vid);
> > > +	else
> > > +		printf("VDI ID of newly created VDI: %x\n", vid);
> > 
> > No, raw_output is supposed to be parsed by applicatoin. Your patch will simply
> > break sheepfs.
> 
> Does this patch break sheepfs? This patch doesn't change any existing
> command line options. And it seems that sheepfs only uses "list" of
> "collie vdi", which is not changed by this patch.

Ah, yes, won't break sheepfs.

> 
> > 
> > I don't really see the point to printf message for these operations. If no error
> > returns, it means success.
> 
> Sorry, the description is not enough. We want to know the changed VIDs
> during these operations. This information is used by our internal
> frontend software for sheepdog management. The frontend has its own
> management table which contains VIDs and the above outputs are required
> for updating it.

collie vdi list name doesn't give you the desired vid? If you really want this
, I'd suggest add a '-v --verbose' option to these command, in this way won't
change the old behavior.

Thanks
Yuan