On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 05:38:52PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-08-28 at 18:17 -0400, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > Split out the code that updates a path's state and sets up the next
> > check time into its own function, update_path().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > multipathd/main.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c
> > index 94d4e421..300f8247 100644
> > --- a/multipathd/main.c
> > +++ b/multipathd/main.c
> > @@ -2390,6 +2390,7 @@ sync_mpp(struct vectors * vecs, struct
> > multipath *mpp, unsigned int ticks)
> > }
> >
> > enum check_path_return {
> > + CHECK_PATH_STARTED,
> > CHECK_PATH_CHECKED,
> > CHECK_PATH_SKIPPED,
> > CHECK_PATH_REMOVED,
> > @@ -2629,13 +2630,10 @@ update_path_state (struct vectors * vecs,
> > struct path * pp)
> > }
> >
> > static int
> > -check_path (struct vectors * vecs, struct path * pp, unsigned int
> > ticks,
> > - time_t start_secs)
> > +check_path (struct path * pp, unsigned int ticks)
>
> check_path() used to be one of our core functions, and you now re-
> introduce it with quite different semantics.
>
> Perhaps choose a new name?
Sure. Although the new check_path() is just the beginning part of the
old check_path(), where we actually run the checker, so it seems
reasonable to me. But your objection is also reasonable. I was just
getting sick of coming up with new function names by this point.
-Ben
>
> Martin
