On Mon, 2020-09-28 at 15:26 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 03:40:50PM +0200, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > /*
> > * We don't support re-initialization after
> > @@ -65,6 +66,9 @@ int libmultipath_init(void)
> > static void _libmultipath_exit(void)
> > {
> > libmultipath_exit_called = true;
> > + cleanup_foreign();
>
> I don't really feel too strongly about this, but it seems to me that
> there is a difference between the checkers and prioritizers, which
> it seems like most users of libmultipath would want, and the foreign
> code, which doesn't seem that way. libmpathpersist, for instance,
> will use the checkers and prioritizers, but not the foreign code.
> On the other hand, if the caller isn't using the foreign code,
> then grabbing the lock and checking the foreign pointer shouldn't
> take much time.
It would just be a few cycles. I want callers to have to worry about
cleanup as little as possible. All else is error-prone IMO, and
although I agree that the foreign functions are less important than
checkers and prio, I thought it made sense to treat all our "plug-ins"
the same way.
Ideally I'd like to do checker/prio/foreign initialization completely
lazily too, in the sense that callers don't need to worry about calling
init_checkers() etc., either. But this series had to stop at some
point.
Either way, it's not a big issue, so please tell me if you feel
strongly enough about it to ask me to revert the change.
Regards,
Martin
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
