On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 16:25 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:36:13PM +0200, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> > > > > If pathinfo fails for one path to be adopted, we currently > > fail the entire function. This may cause ev_add_path() for a valid > > path to fail because some other path is broken. Fix it by just > > skipping paths that don't look healthy. > > This looks problematic to me. While I agree that we shouldn't make > ev_add_path fail because some other path failed, but what about if > the > path we are trying to add fails in pathinfo(). In this case > multipathd > won't orphan the path and it will report "path added to devmap", even > though it wasn't. Also what is the correct response for when you try > to create a multipath device but none of the paths can be added. > Should multipathd create a device with no paths? There are 3 callers of adopt_path(): 1 add_map_with_path() 2 ev_add_path() 3 update_map() adopt_paths() only ever adds new paths to a map, so in case 3), the map would not come out without paths unless it had been empty before already. For this caller, my patch is definitely an improvement. For 1) and 2), we are adding a specific path, so we should test in the caller whether that specific path was successfully added, and fail otherwise. Would that address your concern? Regards, Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
