On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 01:34:29PM +0200, mwi...@suse.com wrote: > From: Martin Wilck <mwi...@suse.com> > > Add a comment explaining why we use different flags for "new" and > existing paths. > Reviewed-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarz...@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwi...@suse.com> > --- > libmultipath/discovery.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/libmultipath/discovery.c b/libmultipath/discovery.c > index 5f4ebf0..64d3473 100644 > --- a/libmultipath/discovery.c > +++ b/libmultipath/discovery.c > @@ -137,6 +137,11 @@ path_discover (vector pathvec, struct config * conf, > udevice, flag | DI_BLACKLIST, > NULL); > else > + /* > + * Don't use DI_BLACKLIST on paths already in pathvec. We rely > + * on the caller to pre-populate the pathvec with valid paths > + * only. > + */ > return pathinfo(pp, conf, flag); > } > > -- > 2.28.0
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
