On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 02:50:00PM +0800, tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Please have a review for this patch, any comment will be highly
> appreciated.
This is clearly correct. I suspect that there will be other places where
we need to also check for PATH_TIMEOUT, since it is basically the same
as PATH_DOWN, except with a different state name. For instance, we
only log error messages on repeated checks for (newstate == PATH_DOWN),
and we should probably do that for PATH_TIMEOUT as well. There are
probably more instances outside of check_path.
-Ben
>
> ������: tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx
> �ռ���: christophe varoqui <christophe.varoqui@xxxxxxx>,
> ����: dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, zhang.kai16@xxxxxxxxxx, "tang.junhui"
> <tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ����: 2016/08/10 16:11
> ����: [PATCH] multipathd: fail path when path check timeout
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "tang.junhui" <tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> path should be failed when path status is PATH_TIMEOUT after check,
> otherwise, the valid number of paths in the map would be increased when
> the path status is PATH_UP after the next turn check, which would cause
> the valid number of paths exceeding the total number of paths in the map.
>
> Signed-off-by: tang.junhui <tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> multipathd/main.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c
> index f5e9a01..01f1e58 100644
> --- a/multipathd/main.c
> +++ b/multipathd/main.c
> @@ -1585,7 +1585,7 @@ check_path (struct vectors * vecs, struct path * pp,
> int ticks)
> pp->checkint = conf->checkint;
> put_multipath_config(conf);
>
> - if (newstate == PATH_DOWN || newstate
> == PATH_SHAKY) {
> + if (newstate == PATH_DOWN || newstate
> == PATH_SHAKY || newstate == PATH_TIMEOUT) {
> /*
> * proactively fail
> path in the DM
> */
> --
> 2.8.1.windows.1
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
