Re: [PATCH v2 46/54] libmultipath: path_discover(): explain pathinfo flags

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 01:34:29PM +0200, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> Add a comment explaining why we use different flags for "new" and
> existing paths.
> 
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  libmultipath/discovery.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/libmultipath/discovery.c b/libmultipath/discovery.c
> index 5f4ebf0..64d3473 100644
> --- a/libmultipath/discovery.c
> +++ b/libmultipath/discovery.c
> @@ -137,6 +137,11 @@ path_discover (vector pathvec, struct config * conf,
>  				      udevice, flag | DI_BLACKLIST,
>  				      NULL);
>  	else
> +		/*
> +		 * Don't use DI_BLACKLIST on paths already in pathvec. We rely
> +		 * on the caller to pre-populate the pathvec with valid paths
> +		 * only.
> +		 */
>  		return pathinfo(pp, conf, flag);
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.28.0

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel




[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux