Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

extfs.tune is misdocumented and missing a keyword argument #54426

Closed
qcpeter opened this issue Sep 6, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #65687
Closed

extfs.tune is misdocumented and missing a keyword argument #54426

qcpeter opened this issue Sep 6, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #65687
Labels
Bug broken, incorrect, or confusing behavior Confirmed Salt engineer has confirmed bug/feature - often including a MCVE Execution-Module severity-low 4th level, cosemtic problems, work around exists
Milestone

Comments

@qcpeter
Copy link

qcpeter commented Sep 6, 2019

Description of Issue

In the documentation for extfs.tune "reserved" is listed as a keyword argument twice (lines 148 and 153 in salt/modules/extfs.py for versions 2018.3 and 2019.2) once for the percentage reserved and once for the number of blocks. It is interpreted as the block count when passing the flags to tune2fs.

It seems that a second kwarg (perhaps reserved_percentage?) should be used in the docs and that added to the kwarg_map to actually allow the reserved blocks to be set as a percentage and to avoid the confusion.

Setup

N/A

Steps to Reproduce Issue

N/A

Versions Report

2018.3. and 2019.2 (at least)

@DmitryKuzmenko
Copy link
Contributor

The reserved is -r that is the reserved blocks count.
The -m flag for reserved blocks percentage is missing.

@DmitryKuzmenko DmitryKuzmenko added this to the Approved milestone Sep 16, 2019
@DmitryKuzmenko DmitryKuzmenko added Bug broken, incorrect, or confusing behavior Confirmed Salt engineer has confirmed bug/feature - often including a MCVE Execution-Module severity-low 4th level, cosemtic problems, work around exists P4 Priority 4 labels Sep 16, 2019
@qcpeter
Copy link
Author

qcpeter commented Sep 16, 2019

Hi @DmitryKuzmenko, just to be clear if you read the documentation carefully you'll notice that reserved is listed twice with two separate descriptions. See here. "reserved" is both the 11th and 16th entry. My suggestion to add reserved_percentage was based on the fact that the current behaviour is to set the block count.

@DmitryKuzmenko
Copy link
Contributor

@qcpeter sorry, I wasn't clear in my comment. I'm just confirming your report.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Bug broken, incorrect, or confusing behavior Confirmed Salt engineer has confirmed bug/feature - often including a MCVE Execution-Module severity-low 4th level, cosemtic problems, work around exists
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants