On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 06:17:18PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote:
> 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.
I'm fine with switching the order. Also, I assume you'd like the log
level to be set to 2, right?
-Ben
> Other than that, LGTM.
>
> Regards
> Martin
