[dm-devel] [PATCH 19/57] multipathd: Do not print misleading message 'not found in pathvec'

[Christophe Varoqui]

The patch was merged as-is, so reinstating the warning, using another
non-conflicting phrasing, would require a new patch.

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:47 AM, Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.de> wrote:

> On 05/02/2016 05:40 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:10:20PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> When looking up a path in the existing configuration it is perfectly
> >> possible for the path not to be present.
> >> This should not generate a message as it might be errorneously
> >> interpreted as an error.
> >>
> >
> > Do you feel really strongly that these messages should go? I don't think
> > that they are essential, but they can be useful when debugging an issue
> > to see the route the code took. We could move them to level 4, but
> > personally, I find the amount of messages generated at log level 4 to be
> > so high that it's a pain to use to track bugs that don't occur right
> > away. Another possibility would be to change the message to something
> > more innocuous.
> >
> I'm not particulary attached to this patch.
> The main issues I have is that we're generating two identical messages
> at two different locations (ie making it hard to debug), and that the
> message don't indicate whether it's an error or not.
>
> But sure, I can easily drop this patch.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes
> --
> Dr. Hannes Reinecke                   zSeries & Storage
> hare at suse.de                          +49 911 74053 688
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
> GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/attachments/20160503/5829d398/attachment.htm>