On Sat, Jul 09 2022 at 11:06P -0400, Mike Christie <michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7/7/22 3:27 PM, Mike Christie wrote: > > When an app does a pr_reserve it will go to whatever path we happen to > > be using at the time. This can result in errors where the app does a > > second pr_reserve call and expects success but gets a failure becuase > > the reserve is not done on the holder's path. This patch has us always > > start trying to do reserves from the first path in the first group. > > > > Hi, > > Giving myself a review comment. pr_preempt can also establish a reservation. > I meant to send a patch for that as well. If the approach in this patchset is > ok, I'll send a patch for that as well. > It'd be nice to have Christoph weigh-in on these changes but I'm OK with them in general. But please give details on what you've tested them against. I assume the Windows cluster? How about pacemaker? And all looks good on other systems that don't have the requirement to pin the PR to a device? Once I have this context on testing I can then work through the changes more closely and get them staged. Please do feel free to send a v2 that conveys what testing was done and you're welcome to sned the patch for pr_preempt too. Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
