On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:15:16AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 01/28/2016 04:52 AM, Gris Ge wrote: > > FAQ: > > > > 1. Why not use better approach like wrapping multipathd IPC > > output? > > > > That often means a lot changes to existing code which might be > > rejected. > > I would like to create a stable set of API, while its internal > > implementation could be changed without breaking binary > > compatibility. > > > > Rather ... not. > > I would very much advocate to use the IPC interface into multipathd; > we can easily define a stable ABI for that. Hi Hannes Reinecke,
OK. I will try that approach. Thanks for the suggestions. > > Cheers, > > Hannes -- Gris Ge
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
