21.03.2013 22:01, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 21.3.2013 19:31, Vladislav Bogdanov napsal(a): >> 20.03.2013 11:45, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: >> ... >>> >>> (BTW there is already one thing which will surely not pass - it's the >>> 'node' option for lvm command - this would have to be made diferently). >> >> clvmd uses term 'node' internally. And that is the most right term for >> what it means IMHO. >> > > Yes - in clvmd locking layer it's ok - but lvm namespace stays aways > from this layer. Thus lvm is not aware of any locking mechanism.. So the > thing would have to be handle via activation lock flags and as I've said > - the protocol used there (lvm <-> clvmd) is quite fragile. And it also has "node" field (struct clvm_header used everywhere in cluster_locking.c). It is fragile, yes, but I managed to not break it I think. So, what would be the right option name? _______________________________________________ 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/
