On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 02:05:00PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote: > 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? That sounds reasonable -Ben > > Regards, > Martin > > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
