RE: [pcp] proc PMDA problems

pcp

RE: [pcp] proc PMDA problems

To:	"'Nathan Scott'" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	RE: [pcp] proc PMDA problems
From:	"Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Tue, 5 May 2015 11:34:44 +1000
Cc:	"'PCP'" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to:	pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<722078379.12565681.1430788360686.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References:	<5547D742.4060807@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <722078379.12565681.1430788360686.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index:	AQF18yArVRVuYsPlrtOqFfNCOtgWLwIslnzcnhBb+XA=

> -----Original Message-----
> ...
> I agree with you though, its the wrong error code - I'll update it.
> We use PM_ERR_APPVERSION elsewhere in the PMDA for this, so I'll go with
> that.

Good.

> Yep.  We actually use a mix of -ENODATA (entire procfs file missing, or some
> other IO error) and PM_ERR_APPVERSION (individual fields of procfs file
> missing).

I'll wait for the first change and then do what needs to be done for the qa 
test.

Thanks and cheers, Ken.

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
proc PMDA problems, Ken McDonell Re: [pcp] proc PMDA problems, Nathan Scott RE: [pcp] proc PMDA problems, Ken McDonell <=

Previous by Date:	Re: [pcp] python 2.4 and qa issue, Nathan Scott
Next by Date:	pcp updates: pmdaproc error codes, pmdapostfix qa, Nathan Scott
Previous by Thread:	Re: [pcp] proc PMDA problems, Nathan Scott
Next by Thread:	pcp updates - qa fixup, Ken McDonell
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]