From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christophe Varoqui <christophe.varoqui@free.fr>
Subject: Re: dm-multipath [PATCH] "better" return codes.
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:44:57 +0100
Message-ID: <20060302104457.GA14155@pundit>
References: <20060227211110.GB7357@ether.msp.redhat.com>
Reply-To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060227211110.GB7357@ether.msp.redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Id: dm-devel.ids

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