The multipath utility is relying on having at least one block read/write I/O be serviced through a multipath mapped device in order to show one of the path priority groups in an active state. While I can see the semantic correctness in this claim since the priority group is not yet initialized, is this what is intended? Why show both the single priority group of an active-active storage system using a multibus path grouping policy and the non-active priority group of an active-passive storage system using a priority path grouping policy both as "enabled" when the actual readiness of each differs quite significantly? Also, multipath will not set a path to a failed state until the first block read/write I/O to that path fails. This approach can be misleading while monitoring path health via "multipath -l". Why not have multipath(8) fail paths known to fail path testing? Waiting instead for block I/O requests to fail lessens the responsiveness of the product to path failures. Also, the failed paths of enabled, but non-active path priority groups will not have their path state updated for possibly a very long time -- and this seems very misleading.