From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1794588285; b=jwFrkDCMOFb3vhgW+H51SJ0S+yVoTfOjQfJjHKVyKV5N2c/IK3Cw/362BBHrynmJWatc z6qA3eaGy+VJ/p5XXjkre57IuZ9KgwK67OM0/rCmn2BAojQpxEtp56UHtogQFcGeNve5L JhT4p9cQ3V0yT11da8vc4B6xJVqA1mhzlmgaedKRIK1QIru5OnqpJ3o1b2IYiFRCul8ON IWrPgadFuqiM5oadiIQytBHvAtYjQyjQbyyoTbQWHj47K30O5J4l2JyGFdqCt+j4vpq/P SbSc938Bs7f8KYKfj9m0XselhORHiVAToElbTMcztCCvU+64DVULAspFotsjj5++x7Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1794588285; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:Received:X-MC-Unique: X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID:Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:From: To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By:X-Mimecast-Spam-Score:X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: X-Mimecast-Originator:Content-Type:Content-Disposition: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=uBOM/iKzLTFQ6RoAGp2AYG5OqmMu2aQzWdTXv+yCfks=; b=c2ziOAXCYzNakVz8njHPkbwhO0Sw/t7Z7ZyUymJP3HOmbN8dK/5/VSXgHFQMvvgiwW8w Qxep8UP5vPEwl4+/SuCYxAi22M0Kidsy4e0+WGtxaA5AESsI2D6oHOlPPwe6GXhqK40dI 9auMTmBP/glgdwiP1wEi6HH46O+ybAo3zxlMqks1XyyoUUj7fE6zCSGmpvux56KTwI6ym f6/TbEvL9QLT3LAxlXk+r/lLGO9mNgLDSTivJ/4jxItNm+fBYV/b81a40wkAavgwz7Zwj 1ukgHyLlxskZXG3hKSt4KWKIaTp6Tz1khhhjzvEF9CtGJtW0Rn1fxv5ZNdU/oDbA8xg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=ZgebcBih; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A655606A887 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 16:44:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 8A655606A887 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=ZgebcBih DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1794588283; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=uBOM/iKzLTFQ6RoAGp2AYG5OqmMu2aQzWdTXv+yCfks=; b=ZgebcBih18qrJAWR7Kt81iz68ZF+gy0LblULadKP7Uw+701HicWVY69yYnhS0XDB8SOctw p2+xe1VuQxmJutC9XGxUHGCk8Coqkj35WWHhc6s34uaL4IOWmGCbxEW+4ePefQkx2HaV+y t2jJp2CxfI27RVAypuqZeaT1FIbVlns= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-654-o4Bt6OSkP_-2zwEegNrs8A-1; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 11:44:38 -0500 X-MC-Unique: o4Bt6OSkP_-2zwEegNrs8A-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: o4Bt6OSkP_-2zwEegNrs8A_1794588276 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EA1E1955F41; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 16:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com [10.6.23.12]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 391B518004FE; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 16:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 6ADGiZdC2030415 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Nov 2026 11:44:35 -0500 Received: (from bmarzins@localhost) by bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (8.18.1/8.18.1/Submit) id 6ADGiYok2030414; Fri, 13 Nov 2026 11:44:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2026 11:44:34 -0500 From: Benjamin Marzinski To: Martin Wilck Cc: Brian Bunker , Hannes Reinecke , Christophe Varoqui , dm-devel@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: udev / multipath-tools: WWID determination with SG_IO vs. sysfs Message-ID: References: <20261109185556.27139-1-brian@purestorage.com> <214d18ebabeca8318352dfa5456bc5b37cdefdeb.camel@suse.com> <20261111174259.41911-1-brian@purestorage.com> <20261111230535.12947-1-brian@purestorage.com> <83f73b9cb1506eb80220759e3e0aae18648f80c4.camel@suse.com> X-Mailing-List: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: MMhMksLmw5Iphb63_ENejntyIFP4U-M0P5zAYdTTbGY_1794588276 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 09:47:54PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Thu, 2026-11-12 at 14:58 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 08:00:58PM +0100, Martin Wilck wrote: > > > >   > > > Brian's patch would add more such ioctls and thus increase the > > > likelihood of observing a stall. To be observed. > > > > > > > This is true, and unlike the existing recheck_wwids use and the > > prioritizer, it won't be called right after the path checker > > determined > > a path to be up. We do also do SG_IO ioctls in pathinfo when DI_IOCTL > > is > > set (when we're adding a path, reconfiguring multipath, or > > initializing > > a partial path). In that case we do check if the path is up according > > to > > sysfs first, but we don't call the checker. > > So, would you prefer making it conditional on something else but > "recheck_wwid"? Since recheck_wwid is set, we could just limit this new check_path_wwid_change() check in ev_add_path() to paths that are up. uev_add_path() will run the path checker before we get here. If the path isn't up, recheck_wwid guarantees that we will do the check when the path is up. That should make this no more risky than the existing recheck_wwid calls. -Ben > Martin > > -- > Dr. Martin Wilck > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg, > Germany > Geschäftsführer: Stefan Gaiser, Jochen Jaser, Abhinav Puri (HRB > 36809,AG Nürnberg)