On Tue, 2023-12-12 at 18:53 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> Some of the client handlers checked for paths by both dev and devt,
> but
> not all. Also, many of the client handlers don't print anything if
> they
> failed to find a path. Make all the client handlers which work on
> path
> devices use a new function, find_path_by_str(), which will try both
> methods to find a path, and can print out an error message if none is
> found.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> multipathd/cli_handlers.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> --
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/multipathd/cli_handlers.c b/multipathd/cli_handlers.c
> index 063a771f..7f550030 100644
> --- a/multipathd/cli_handlers.c
> +++ b/multipathd/cli_handlers.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,20 @@
> #include "cli_handlers.h"
> #include "devmapper.h"
>
> +static struct path *
> +find_path_by_str(const struct _vector *pathvec, const char *str,
> + const char *action_str)
> +{
> + struct path *pp;
> +
> + if (!(pp = find_path_by_dev(pathvec, str)))
> + pp = find_path_by_devt(pathvec, str);
I wonder if devt should be tried first. It doesn't make a real
difference because no real-world devices will have major:minor names,
and the callers in the old code did it the other way around, too; but
it would feel more correct to me.
Other than that, LGTM.
Regards
Martin
