On Thu, 2024-09-05 at 15:02 -0400, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 02:51:19PM -0400, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > 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
>
> Do you have ideas for the name, because I can't think of anything
> that
> makes more sense then check_path() in the code paths. Here's the code
> paths
Ok then, keep the name. I was hoping we could find something better
because (as you correctly show) there's already quite some confusion
because of multiple functions with very similar names.
But if we can't, so be it.
Martin
