[Linux-ha-dev] Re: Re: Difference between OCF_ERR_CONFIGURED and OCF_ERR_INSTALLED ?

[Joe Bill]

> So from now on OCF_ERR_ARGS will be a "hard" error
> instead of a "fatal" one. 

I copy that.

>> Regarding the mnemonics of the return codes...
>>
>> From your notes above, it seems the status
>> definitions appear to be more related to the
>> restart and blocking effect the HA supervisor
>> has on resources, than what the current mnemonics
>> attempt to describe as situation.
>>
>> I am not sure it is such a good idea to attempt to
>> combine a condition with the condition's handling
>> action in the process of defining states that are
>> to be reported to the supervisor.

> Not sure I follow this

I know it's a bit obscur so that's why I continued ...

>> From what you provided as description, is it i.e.
>> the supervisor's concern, and will the supervisor
>> attempt anything to address the cause, or for that
>> matter do anything different if it receives any of
>> the following status: OCF_ERR_UNIMPLEMENTED,
>> OCF_ERR_PERM, OCF_ERR_INSTALLED ? 

What I meant is: does heartbeat do anything different,
whether it receives either 3 return codes directly above,
(or 4, if you now include OCF_ERR_ARGS), considering
that all of them cause, as you call it, a "hard" restart
of the resource ? 

Or, in other words, are all 4 return codes necessary,
if all we want in all 4 cases is to trigger a hard reset ?

In which case, this suggests that whatever the cause for
such a return code, like "permissions failure", or an
"installation failure", is superfluous to specify in the
mnemonic. So superfluous that it becomes misleading when
it comes to explaining the effect such a return code is
supposed to cause the supervisor.

Unless the supervisor does anything special in any 4,
cases above, the condition returned is understood better
if only one return code describes it, and the mnemonic is
better chosen, i.e. OCF_CRIT_LOCAL or OCF_CRIT_NODE or
OCF_FATAL_LOCAL or OCF_FATAL_NODE.

Eventually, OCF_ERR_CONFIGURED is understood better if
it is renamed to OCF_FATAL_COMMON or OCF_FATAL_CLUSTER.

And OCF_ERR_GENERIC, to plain old OCF_ERROR ...

So, to summarize, the original mnemonics attempted to
describe situations combined with the severity
of a condition to handle, ERR for error, while ignoring the
different effect such conditions have on the supervisor,
whereas, in the proposed scheme, we drop the situational
part in the mnemonic to focus on the severity and the
scope of the effect, bringing along a better understanding
of what the supervisor does and needs.