On Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:10 PM, Dave Wysochanski wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 17:48 -0500, Edward Goggin wrote: > > OK. I was trying not to have to introduce another > > prio state because that approach just seems prone > > to error. > > > > I'll give it a try tomorrow. > > > > Ed has a point. > > An effect of using the special value approach over the flag is a > potential conflict with the callouts using the same values. The flag > approach isolates his initialization case better. That's OK I think. I like this approach better since it seems cleaner as long as the callouts stay away from PRIO_UNDEF literal (-1). I tested with inactive snapshots and just have one minor (but important) adjustment to what is in source control at the moment. diff --git a/libmultipath/discovery.c b/libmultipath/discovery.c index f21e5bc..6f2059a 100644 --- a/libmultipath/discovery.c +++ b/libmultipath/discovery.c @@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ pathinfo (struct path *pp, vector hwtabl * been successfully obtained before. */ if (mask & DI_PRIO && - (pp->state != PATH_DOWN || pp->priority != PRIO_UNDEF)) + (pp->state != PATH_DOWN || pp->priority == PRIO_UNDEF)) get_prio(pp); if (mask & DI_WWID && !strlen(pp->wwid)) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
