Just RFC: I noticed that 'vgchange -ay' can convert the lock which locked by 'vgchange -aey' from EX to CR. Is that acceptable to change the logic into always allocating a new lock rather than converting an existing lock? In that case, 'vgchange -ay' won't change the result of 'vgchange -aey'. But if we really want to convert the lock, we can firstly invoke 'vgchange -aen' to release the EX lock, then invoke the 'vgchange -ay'. Does this make sense? Or what side effect it may introduce? Thanks, Jiaju >>> On 8/6/2009 at 9:39 AM, in message <4A7A346B.A94 : 39 : 18251>, Jia Ju Zhang wrote: > On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 21:29 +0200, brem belguebli wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Same behaviour as the one from Rafael. >> >> Everything is coherent as long as you use the exclusive flag from the >> rogue node, the locking does the job. Deactivating an already opened >> VG (mounted lvol) is not possible either. How could this behave in >> case one used raw devices instead of FS ? >> >> But when you come to ignore the exclusive flag on the rogue node >> (vgchange -a y vgXX) the locking is completely bypassed. It's >> definitely here that the watchdog has to be (within the tools >> lvchange, vgchange, or at dlm level). > > Is there an open bugzilla # for this? Would like to follow this issue. > -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
