From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][KVM-AUTOTEST] Make code to remove kvm modules more robust
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:40:18 +0300
Message-ID: <4A1AC9F2.9030000@redhat.com>
References: <1242849851-8029-1-git-send-email-mburns@redhat.com> <1243258893.2838.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mike Burns <mburns@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	ulublin@redhat.com, dhuff@redhat.com
To: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <lmr@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39743 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751055AbZEYQkS (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 25 May 2009 12:40:18 -0400
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4PGeKK2030477
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Mon, 25 May 2009 12:40:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1243258893.2838.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 16:04 -0400, Mike Burns wrote:
>   
>> +
>> +def __unload_modules(module):
>> +  lsmod = os.popen("lsmod | grep \"^%s \"" % module)
>> +  line_parts = lsmod.readline().split()
>> +  if len(line_parts) == 0:
>> +    kvm_log.info("%s not loaded." % module)
>> +  else:
>> +    kvm_log.info("Found module %s, checking for dependecies..." %module)
>> +    if len(line_parts) == 4:
>> +      submodules = line_parts[3].split(",")
>> +      for submodule in submodules:
>> +        __unload_modules(submodule)
>> +    else:
>> +      kvm_log.info("No modules dependent on %s" % module )
>> +  
>> +    kvm_log.info("Removing module: %s" % module)
>> +    utils.system("/sbin/modprobe -r %s" % module, ignore_status=False)
>>     
>
> ignore_status is False by default, so no need to do explicitly pass it
> to the function. Also, as we are putting something that can throw an
> exception, you can wrap it in a try/except module that throws a
> error.TestError exception in case our module removal still fails.
>   

Wrapping every function with try/except defeats the purpose of 
exceptions.  Can't autotest handle arbitrary exceptions?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function