On 10/04/2014 02:11 AM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > The way the code works, PATH_TIMEOUT is treated mostly like PATH_UP or > PATH_GHOST by check_path. If the the path was previously failed, it will > even reinstate the path. It will also trigger prio refreshing. It seems > that PATH_TIMEOUT should be at least as serious as PATH_PENDING, but the > way the code works, it's not. In pathinfo, PATH_TIMEOUT gets changed > directly to PATH_DOWN, which makes sense. But assuming that's the correct > thing to do, why have PATH_TIMEOUT at all? > Because a timeout is different from a normal path down. Timeout means the tur checker is stuck somehow. And we currently have no real means of resetting it (aio_cancel doesn't really abort the I/O, is just short-circuit the callback). So the intention of this patch was that we want to get notified if a TUR timeout occurs, as this might lead to other subsequent errors. > The only thing that it does that seems helpful is that when you print out > the path, instead of it saying that the path is down, it says that the > path has timed out. But if we are going to treat is like the path is > down, then I don't see this being too helpful. And the way we are treating > PATH_TIMEOUT right now is definitely not right. > See above. I really would like to be notified for PATH_TIMEOUT scenarios ... Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
