On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 14:48 -0500, Edward Goggin wrote: > On Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:49 AM, Dave Wysochanski wrote > > > One other thought I had was the notion of a "priority valid" > > flag (or a > > special priority value) in the path for the case of > > group_by_prio. Set > > it to invalid in alloc_path(), then just don't add the path to the > > multipath struct in coalesce_paths() if the priority value > > was invalid. > > Then over in checkerloop(), add the path to the multipath map when you > > get a valid priority. > > > > It is more complicated than that I'm sure (e.g. checkerloop() assumes > > pp->mpp is non-null in places, etc) but seemed like a half-decent > > approach to at least consider. > > > > This approach doesn't take into consideration the general case of a > > change in path priority though. > > I very much like the first part of your "priority valid" idea > mentioned above. > > I've enclosed a patch for the first part of your idea. The patch > should address the concern you had about recalculating priority > for a path when its path state changes from not PATH_DOWN to > PATH_DOWN. It now only retrieves the priority for PATH_DOWN > paths if the path's priority has never been successfully > retrieved before. > Great. Your patch looks fine. > I've punted for now on the reloading of the map if a path priority > change has caused a path group membership change. This is kind of > complex, has lots of down sides, and there doesn't seem to be a > need for it as of now. Sure that's fine. That would be extreme and I'm all for simplicity. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
