Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 9/9] multipathd: use update_path_groups instead of reload_map

2019-02-26 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:47:29AM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > reload_map() doesn't do the work to sync the state after reloading > > the > > map. Instead of calling it directly, cli_reload() and > > uev_update_path() > > should cal

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 8/9] libmutipath: continue to use old state on PATH_PENDING

2019-02-26 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:12:47AM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > When pathinfo() sets pp->state to PATH_PENDING, it can cause problems > > with path checking. It should act more like check_path(). When > > check_path() sees a new stat

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 7/9] multipathd: ignore failed wwid recheck

2019-02-26 Thread Benjamin Marzinski
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:42:49AM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > If disable_changed_wwids is set, when multipathd gets a change event > > on > > a path, it verifies that the wwid hasn't changed in > > uev_update_path(). > > If get_uid(

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/9] Misc Multipath patches

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 11:50 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > In case I've caused confusion: > > ACK on the series except 9/9 for which I'd appreciate some extra > information. Argh. I meant to say: all except 7/9 and 9/9. Details in my related emails. Next time I better not try to avoid confusion

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/9] Misc Multipath patches

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > The series is a mix of resends an new patches. > > Patches 0001-0005 are simply resends of patches I've submitted > earlier, > with no changes other that adding Reviewed-by's where appropriate. > > Patches 0006-0009 are the result of

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 9/9] multipathd: use update_path_groups instead of reload_map

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > reload_map() doesn't do the work to sync the state after reloading > the > map. Instead of calling it directly, cli_reload() and > uev_update_path() > should call update_path_groups(), which calls reload_map() with all > the > necessar

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 6/9] multipathd: Fix miscounting active paths

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 10:15 +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > When multipathd gets a change uevent, it calls pathinfo with > > DI_NOIO. > > This sets the path state to the return value of path_offline(). If > > a > > path is in the PATH_DO

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 8/9] libmutipath: continue to use old state on PATH_PENDING

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > When pathinfo() sets pp->state to PATH_PENDING, it can cause problems > with path checking. It should act more like check_path(). When > check_path() sees a new state of PATH_PENDING, it doesn't update the > path state at all, so a pat

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 7/9] multipathd: ignore failed wwid recheck

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > If disable_changed_wwids is set, when multipathd gets a change event > on > a path, it verifies that the wwid hasn't changed in > uev_update_path(). > If get_uid() failed, uev_update_path treated this as a wwid change to > 0. > This cou

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 6/9] multipathd: Fix miscounting active paths

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > When multipathd gets a change uevent, it calls pathinfo with DI_NOIO. > This sets the path state to the return value of path_offline(). If a > path is in the PATH_DOWN state but path_offline() returns PATH_UP, > when > that path gets a

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/9] libmultipath: disable user_friendly_names for NetApp

2019-02-26 Thread Martin Wilck
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > NetApp has tools that rely on devices using WWID names. To avoid > breaking these, NetApp devices should continue to use WWID names, > even > if the default config is set to enable user_friendly_names. If users > want to use user_friend