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 wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 05:40 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 01:10:20PM +0200,
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
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
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.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke
---
libmultipath/structs.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2