On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 22:24 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> 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?
Yes.
Regards
Martin
