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

[Joe Bill]

--- On Wed, 7/9/08, Andrew Beekhof <beekhof at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Or, in other words, are all 4 return codes necessary,
>> if all we want in all 4 cases is to trigger a hard reset ?
> 
> programatically, not really.
> but if i'm an admin trying to figure out why the
> resource wont run on a given node anymore, i'm sure
> i'd appreciate them not being merged.

That I fully understand. But shouldn't these conditions be described independently from the condition status, through, i.e. a condition code ?

> at any rate, these return codes are part of the OCF spec.
> we're just following it and indicating what type of
> recovery we do for each.

I also understand that and that's why I was precisely saying mixing a condition with it's severity or it's handling was not a good idea for the reasons I already gave.

Right now, the OCF return status code only uses 9 values out of 256 the return status allows, or in other words 4 bits out of 8.

For an improved scheme, why not use the lower bits to describe the condition as they are described today, with the exception of values 0 and 1 which describe generic success and error codes, and the higher 4 bits to describe the severity and handling ?

One can also imagine, if the high bits aren't used, use the current scheme, and if the high bits are used using the improved scheme.