Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:02:16 +0200 From: David Marec <david.marec@davenulle.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What was the intention about "jail -e" in the first place ? Message-ID: <fe9b57ad-f9c8-01de-5cc6-ae74e6ae1603@davenulle.org> In-Reply-To: <bca59805-979f-9763-9d42-e7e98d9b0ea6@grosbein.net> References: <158a9402-eac6-90ed-7931-3477f1374c3e@davenulle.org> <bca59805-979f-9763-9d42-e7e98d9b0ea6@grosbein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le 16/04/2020 à 16:22, Eugene Grosbein a écrit : >> But,how was "jail -e" intending to be used, actually ? > > "jail -e" mode is used by periodic/weekly/340.noid script to differentiate parts of mounted file trees > belonging to the host and to the configured full-blown jails, no matter started or not. > > This is documentation ambiguity as "jail -e" was not intended to take jail name as additional argument. Oh, I had a deeper look at the "-e" section of the man page where this statement is clear enough.Thanks. > Do you have any real use case this addition? No, not a case in the real world. I was just playing around with jails on a server and tried to get the ip4 field of a specific one to make sure it was set to 'inherit'. P.-S.: However, I had time to write a short patch (attached to the email) to make it work with a jail list as arguments. ( and that do not change the header file anymore ) This one also add a dedicated line for the "-e" command and fix few typos in the usage() output. // To improve the lookup in the nested loop, I first called "TAILQ REMOVE" on jailnames when found but this would produce errors if the user add more than once the same name in the list .// Regards, -- David Marec https://diablotins.lapinbilly.eu/doku.php?id=jails:zfs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fe9b57ad-f9c8-01de-5cc6-ae74e6ae1603>