On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 17:21 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:36:15PM +0200, mwi...@suse.com wrote:
> > From: Martin Wilck
> >
> > Since 65e1845 ("multipath: call store_pathinfo with DI_BLACKLIST"),
> > we
> > use DI_BLACKLIST for new paths. There's no reason why we
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 12:36:15PM +0200, mwi...@suse.com wrote:
> From: Martin Wilck
>
> Since 65e1845 ("multipath: call store_pathinfo with DI_BLACKLIST"), we
> use DI_BLACKLIST for new paths. There's no reason why we shouldn't do the
> same with paths which are (unexpectedly) already in
From: Martin Wilck
Since 65e1845 ("multipath: call store_pathinfo with DI_BLACKLIST"), we
use DI_BLACKLIST for new paths. There's no reason why we shouldn't do the
same with paths which are (unexpectedly) already in pathvec. As argued
for 65e1845, this might save some unnecessary work for paths
