On Sun, 2020-07-19 at 00:07 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:51:35PM +0200, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > In a follow up patch, we will set INIT_MISSING_UDEV and set tick=1
> > (minimal) at the same time. In this case, which is new,
> > check_path()
> > must reset the delay when it first triggers an uevent.
>
> Maybe I'm just being obtuse here, but I don't get what this does.
> pp->tick will always be 0 for any path that makes it to the check
>
> if (!pp->mpp && pp->initialized == INIT_MISSING_UDEV) {
>
> And then if it's not out of retries, the path will get set to
> INIT_REQUESTED_UDEV, and pathinfo() will take care of resetting pp-
> >tick
> when it gets called by the new uevent.
>
> If it is out of retries, the path won't get pp->tick reset, which
> seems
> wrong, but it that case it should probably be set to max_checkint,
> like
> happens when the "add missing paths" code fails.
>
> Or like I said, maybe I'm just missing something.
You're not. This was just plain stupid.
Thanks
Martin
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
