[ClusterLabs] PCMK_OCF_DEGRADED (_MASTER): exit codes are mapped to PCMK_OCF_UNKNOWN_ERROR

[Lars Ellenberg]

On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:35:18PM -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/lrmd/lrmd.c b/lrmd/lrmd.c
> >>>> index 724edb7..39a7dd1 100644
> >>>> --- a/lrmd/lrmd.c
> >>>> +++ b/lrmd/lrmd.c
> >>>> @@ -800,11 +800,40 @@ hb2uniform_rc(const char *action, int rc, const char *stdout_data)
> >>>>  static int
> >>>>  ocf2uniform_rc(int rc)
> >>>>  {
> >>>> -    if (rc < 0 || rc > PCMK_OCF_FAILED_MASTER) {
> >>>> -        return PCMK_OCF_UNKNOWN_ERROR;
> >>
> >> Let's simply use > PCMK_OCF_OTHER_ERROR here, since that's guaranteed to
> >> be the high end.
> >>
> >> Lars, do you want to test that?
> > 
> > Why would we want to filter at all, then?
> > 
> > I get it that we may want to map non-ocf agent exit codes
> > into the "ocf" range,
> > but why mask exit codes from "ocf" agents at all (in lrmd)?
> 
> It's probably unnecessarily paranoid, but I guess the idea is to check
> that the agent at least returns something in the expected range for OCF

Well, yes. But, if we are going to allow the range 0 to 199,
I don't see any reason to hide the range 200 to 255.

> (perhaps it's not complying with the spec, or complying with a newer
> version of the spec than we can handle).

Or, as in the case of PCMK_OCF_DEGRADED, complying with a newer version
of the spec that probably would have been handled fine, if it wasn't for
the unneccesary paranoia ;-)

    Lars