----- Original Message -----
From: "David Teigland" <teigland(a)redhat.com>
To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer(a)redhat.com>
Cc: sanlock-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:56:04 PM
Subject: Re: 2 commits - src/resource.c src/sanlock_resource.h
> > sanlock: fix adopting shared orphan lock
> >
> > Adopting a shared orphan lock was missing some
> > initialization (which was already being done for
> > the case of adopting ex orphan.)
>
> Can you explain what is the consequence of this issue?
Releasing the adopted lock returns an error.
Do you have any plans to use orphan locks?
I don't know what is orphan lock :-)
I wonder if this effect vdsm in any way - do we have a related bug?
> > + log_errot(token, "acquire_token sh orphan open error %d", rv);
>
> log_errot?
defined in log.h
Ok, it looks like a typing error. log_error_tok or log_err_t would be
more clear.
> > sanlock: add ORPHAN_ONLY flag for acquire
> >
> > The existing ORPHAN flag will acquire an orphan lock
> > if it exists, otherwise will acquire a new lock.
> >
> > The new ORPHAN_ONLY flag will acquire an orphan lock
> > if it exists, but will not acquire a new lock.
>
> Can you explain what is the consequence of this issue/fix?
You can't make a request to only adopt a lock without it.
> log_errot? (there are more instances bellow)
What's the question?
> > -#define SANLK_RESTRICT_ALL 0x00000001
> > -#define SANLK_RESTRICT_SIGKILL 0x00000002
> > -#define SANLK_RESTRICT_SIGTERM 0x00000004
> > +#define SANLK_RESTRICT_ALL 0x00000001
> > +#define SANLK_RESTRICT_SIGKILL 0x00000002
> > +#define SANLK_RESTRICT_SIGTERM 0x00000004
>
> Why change the indentation?
for appearance
Sure, but the indentation is not consistent now - here in the mail
it looks ok, but in the patch RESTRICT_ALL value is indented less than
the other values.
Nir