On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 11:30:29PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Mon, 2025-03-03 at 14:56 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > The purpose of reinstate_paths() is to reinstate all the paths on a > > multipath device that multipathd thinks are usable, similar to > > sync_map_state(). However, reinstate_paths() doesn't work correctly. > > For instance, it will always reinstate every path in enabled (as > > opposed > > to active or disabled) pathgroups. This is clearly wrong. It might be > > badly written code to avoid enabling paths in PATH_GHOST in active > > pathgroups, but that's just a guess and isn't necessary at any rate. > > > > It's called in two places. The first is when multipath is run with > > CMD_CREATE. The second is when domap() is run with a mpp->action of > > ACT_SWITCHPG or ACT_SWITCHPG_RENAME. This case just exists to run > > extra > > reinstates for paths that are not in PATH_UP, on pathgroups that are > > now > > in the enabled state, instead of the active state. This is old code. > > I'm > > not sure if it ever made sense to do this, but it certainly doesn't > > now. > > > > Multipathd already will make sure that its path states are synced > > with > > the kernel states whenever either the paths get checked or a dm event > > occurs. It makes sense to additionally sync with the kernel state > > when a > > multipath device is reloaded, like sync_map_state() currently does, > > since the path's kernel state will start out of sync with > > multipathd's > > state. > > > > However, if multipathd isn't running, I can see the benefit of being > > able to reinstate paths by running "multipath". So if multipath is > > run to create or reload multipath devices (CMD_CREATE), it will now > > call > > sync_map_state() with a flag to make it behave like reinstate_paths() > > did (it will only reinstate paths, but never preemptively fail them). > > I > > thought about only doing this if check_daemon() said that multipathd > > wasn't running, but perhaps people are relying on running multipath > > to reinstate paths before the next scheduled checker run. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> > > PS: this doesn't look like "stable" material to me. Right? I don't think so. It's not fixing a bug. I would think code cleanups don't need to be in the stable branch unless there are stable-worthy bugfixes that apply on top of them, and its easier to bring back the cleanup rather than rewrite the bugfix. -Ben
