On 08/24/2018 02:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > That sounds reasonable, so we don't need the _WAIT behaviour in > virtlockd itself, as everything will wait in the secdriver instead. > At least for now, until we modularize the startup process with the > shim. Guess that's just one more todo item to solve for the shim > so not the end of the world. Hold on, we do need _WAIT so that we mutually exclude other virtlockd-s from other hosts fiddling with seclabels on a shared NFS. However, we will not deadlock on a single host, that's what I'm saying. Michal -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
