19.03.2013 19:03, David Teigland wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 06:44:58PM +0300, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: >>>> I'm trying to figure out why the code doesn't already use CONVERT when >>>> possible; I would have expected it to. >>> >>>> What happens now without this force/CONVERT >>>> patch? a new lock created/requested? >>>> > >> After new lock creation is requested ;) > > Yeah, it doesn't make much sense for clvmd-corosync.c to do that. > I'm hoping that we can make clvmd-corosync.c aware that it already > holds that lock and attempt to convert it. But that could be not always expected... _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
