On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 09:25:18AM +0200, Michal Prívozník wrote:
> On 08/17/2018 12:24 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 08/14/2018 07:19 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> src/locking/lock_driver.h | 2 ++
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/src/locking/lock_driver.h b/src/locking/lock_driver.h
> >> index 8b7cccc521..7c8f79520a 100644
> >> --- a/src/locking/lock_driver.h
> >> +++ b/src/locking/lock_driver.h
> >> @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@ typedef enum {
> >> VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_RESOURCE_READONLY = (1 << 0),
> >> /* The resource is assigned in shared, writable mode */
> >> VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_RESOURCE_SHARED = (1 << 1),
> >> + /* The resource is locked for metadata change */
> >> + VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_RESOURCE_METADATA = (1 << 2),
> >
> > Does this work or make sense for lease type?
>
> That's the thing. You're right, it doesn't make sense for lease type.
> But on the level of RPC of virtlockd both leases and disks kind of blend
> together. I mean, virtlockd is merely told to lock this or that file.
That's ok. The way I look at it the domain XML describes various
resources, disks, leases, etc. The virtlockd daemon provides a
generic mechanism for acquiring locks. We just happen to map leases
onto the default lock type. Here we're adding a 2nd lock type and do
not require any mapping from leases.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
