From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [172.16.48.31]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6LAmlF3024670 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:48:47 -0400 Received: from eastrmmtao103.cox.net (eastrmmtao103.cox.net [68.230.240.9]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6LAmWCr001835 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:48:32 -0400 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090721104832.OLEK12338.eastrmmtao103.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:48:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4A659CFF.4060308@cox.net> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:48:31 -0500 From: Ron Johnson MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] vgs result code error References: <38bdcd1f0907210016y440121c1x9c92f399e5ea1f9e@mail.gmail.com> <4A657BEB.6070200@cox.net> <38bdcd1f0907210208g19b3a803j90e43a4ce8f6b301@mail.gmail.com> <4A658D5A.7060205@cox.net> <20090721103511.GH32330@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20090721103511.GH32330@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: linux-lvm@redhat.com On 2009-07-21 05:35, Alasdair G Kergon wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:41:46AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> Debian Sid's 2.02.44-3 returns a non-zero code, so either RH fixed it >> upstream, or Debian patched it... > >> # vgs /dev/sdc1 >> WARNING: Ignoring duplicate config node: filter (seeking filter) >> Volume group "sdc1" not found >> # echo $? >> 5 > > That's a *different* error case that works correctly. > > Yes, I agree that the original case mentioned should give EINVALID_CMD_LINE > instead of ECMD_PROCESSED. > On 2009-07-21 02:16, Masanari Iida wrote: > # vgs /dev/cciss/c0d3p3 > Invalid volume group name: cciss/c0d3p3 Hey, you're right!! But why? (I tried to mimic his example as best I could.) Is it because of the multi-level device name, and the parser getting confused? -- Scooty Puff, Sr The Doom-Bringer