[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] dm-multipath [PATCH] "better" return codes.



On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 03:11:10PM -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> I think that these multipathd return codes make more sense (failing if the map
> is not a multipath map, and not failing if it has already been added).
> 
> -Ben

> diff -urpN mp-devel-clean/multipathd/main.c mp-devel-patched/multipathd/main.c
> --- mp-devel-clean/multipathd/main.c	2006-02-27 15:09:55.000000000 -0600
> +++ mp-devel-patched/multipathd/main.c	2006-02-27 15:16:13.000000000 -0600
> @@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ ev_add_map (char * devname, struct vecto
>  	if (map_present && dm_type(alias, DEFAULT_TARGET) <= 0) {
>  		condlog(4, "%s: not a multipath map", alias);
>  		FREE(alias);
> -		return 0;
> +		return 1;
>  	}
>  
Returning ok here means the event needs no treatment and it's ok.
Seems right to me.

>  	mpp = find_mp_by_alias(vecs->mpvec, alias);
> @@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ ev_add_path (char * devname, struct vect
>  		/*
>  		 * allow reconfig of orphaned path here
>  		 */
> -		if (pp->mpp) return 1;
> +		if (pp->mpp) return 0;
>  	}
>  	else {
>  		/*
Indeed, the comment looks wrong wrt actual code.

Regards,
cvaroqui


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]