On 28.09.2016 23:59, John Ferlan wrote: > > > On 09/15/2016 10:35 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292984 >> >> Hold on to your hats, because this is gonna be wild. >> >> In bd3e16a3 I've tried to expose sanlock io_timeout. What I had >> not realized (because there is like no documentation for sanlock >> at all) was very unusual way their APIs work. Basically, what we >> do currently is: >> >> sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout); >> >> which adds a lockspace to sanlock daemon. One would expect that >> io_timeout sets the io_timeout for it. Nah! That's where you are >> completely off the tracks. It sets timeout for next lockspace you >> will probably add later. Therefore: >> >> sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout = 10); >> /* adds new lockspace with default io_timeout */ >> >> sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout = 20); >> /* adds new lockspace with io_timeout = 10 */ >> >> sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout = 40); >> /* adds new lockspace with io_timeout = 20 */ >> >> And so on. You get the picture. >> Fortunately, we don't allow setting io_timeout per domain or per >> domain disk. So we just need to set the default used in the very >> first step and hope for the best (as all the io_timeout-s used >> later will have the same value). >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > Any thoughts about modifying src/locking/sanlock.conf in order add some > text there that indicates support for 'io_timeout' requires at least > sanlock 2.7 (or something similar). Huh, well, versions are tricky a bit. Somebody might just backport stuff and all of a sudden this might work with sanlock-2.6 too. I think we just avoid giving these kind of advice. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list