On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 08:10:58AM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > > > On 04/16/2014 05:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 07:48:52PM -0400, John Ferlan wrote: > <...snip...> > > > > I'm afraid I just don't think this change is safe - I think it will > > cause volumes to go missing from pools as we had before we used > > udevadm settle. > > > > OK - not a problem. This'll be one of those cannot fix with explanation > type bugs. Do you believe it's "reasonable" or "good" to at least have > some sort of message if the udevadm settle timeout is triggered? It is > notable that if the two minute timeout is triggered, then the same > problem exists vis-a-vis having or not having LUNs appear. I guess we could log a message, but we wouldn't want to use a high logging level, since if you have LXC guests, we know we'll get these timeouts every time :-( > Secondary to that - the iSCSI code will end up going through the settle > code twice - once during it's own FindLU's in the GetHostNumber call > during RefreshPool and then once because it calls the SCSI code's > FindLU's call. Additionally, for a SCSI pool start there are two calls > to settle - once at the end of PoolStart (createVport() after > VPORT_CREATE) and then again through the RefreshPool logic during > FindLU. Do you believe both are necessary or should some rework be done? I'm not sure to be honest, but I think it is worth investigating. Ideally I'd say we should only settle once per API call, unless there's a scenario that forces us otherwise. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list