On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 22:37 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 06:26:58PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-12-12 at 18:53 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > > Now that multipathd is running the same code to remove devices as > > > multipath, multipath doesn't need to automatically retry the > > > remove > > > if > > > it fails. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > If we know that multipathd executes the same commands that > > multipathd > > does, why don't we just call delegate_to_multipathd() repeatedly > > until > > the retries are exhausted? > > We could. The benefit of the multipath command is a more specific > error > when the device is in use, and it will work even if multipathd is > wedged. On the other hand users can always check the logs for the > specifics of which device was in use and we could handle ETIMEDOUT or > a > reply of "fail\ntimeout" specially. We might want to do that even if > the > user doesn't ask for retries, since it would be useful for all the > delegated commands to failback to doing the work in multipath if > multipathd is timing out. Good point, I agree. Martin
