| Message ID | 5183603F.5000003@suse.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Deferred, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 08:59:11AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 05/02/2013 11:46 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > Due to some code being placed inside the wrong block, the number of > > seconds to wait between path checks (pp->tick), was only getting set to > > the path's individual check interval if that wasn't equal to the max > > check interval. Otherwise it was using the default for a failed path. > > This patch makes sure that pp->ticks always always gets set correctly > > for active paths. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@redhat.com> > > --- > > multipathd/main.c | 7 +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c > > index 440d254..df1c5b9 100644 > > --- a/multipathd/main.c > > +++ b/multipathd/main.c > > @@ -1219,11 +1219,10 @@ check_path (struct vectors * vecs, struct path * pp) > > pp->checkint = 2 * pp->checkint; > > else > > pp->checkint = conf->max_checkint; > > - > > - pp->tick = pp->checkint; > > - condlog(4, "%s: delay next check %is", > > - pp->dev_t, pp->tick); > > } > > + pp->tick = pp->checkint; > > + condlog(4, "%s: delay next check %is", > > + pp->dev_t, pp->tick); > > } > > } > > else if (newstate == PATH_DOWN) { > > > But then the message is wrong, isn't it? > We should be printing the 'delay next check' message only > if the check was actually delayed, ie inside the block. > > So I think something like this should be more appropriate > (minus line-breaks, of course): > > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c > index 6471d24..9901b02 100644 > --- a/multipathd/main.c > +++ b/multipathd/main.c > @@ -1235,10 +1235,10 @@ check_path (struct vectors * vecs, struct > path * pp) > else > pp->checkint = > conf->max_checkint; > > - pp->tick = pp->checkint; > condlog(4, "%s: delay next check %is", > pp->dev_t, pp->tick); I think you mean pp->checkint here. Otherwise the code will print pp->tick before we set it. But otherwise, I'm fine with this. I'll respin the patch. -Ben > } > + pp->tick = pp->checkint; > } > } > else if (newstate == PATH_DOWN) { > > > Cheers, > > Hannes > -- > Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage > hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg > GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c index 6471d24..9901b02 100644 --- a/multipathd/main.c +++ b/multipathd/main.c @@ -1235,10 +1235,10 @@ check_path (struct vectors * vecs, struct path * pp) else pp->checkint = conf->max_checkint; - pp->tick = pp->checkint; condlog(4, "%s: delay next check %is", pp->dev_t, pp->tick); } + pp->tick = pp->checkint; }