On 07/15/2016 02:35 PM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 02:50:36PM +0800, Gris Ge wrote:
>
> The only thing that I wonder about with this patch is, when previously
> the multipath client code would have failed with EPIPE, and (at least in
> some cases) spit out a semi-useful message, the program will now
> terminate because of the SIGPIPE signal.  I'm not sure it makes any real
> difference, since we weren't very diligent with returning useful error
> messages in this case, and the client code isn't very likely to get
> SIGPIPE.
>
> I'm not very concerned if nobody else thinks this is important, I just
> though I should bring it up.

Hello Ben,

How about modifying SIGPIPE handling in multipath/multipathd as in the 
attached patch?

Thanks,

Bart.