[PATCH] LVM2 RFC: fix return code when exclusive activation fails

[Patrick Caulfield <pcaulfie@redhat.com>]

Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> I don't see that a new error code gains us anything there:
> 
> If operating on multiple objects and you need to know which ones did or
> didn't succeed, then you simply perform the operations separately.
> 
> Only use commands that operate on multiple objects when you aren't
> interested in knowing.
> 
> 
> The bugzilla referenced is discussing "What precisely should -ae" mean?
> Should it be different from "-ael" ?  Under precisely what sets of
> circumstances should it return an error, and based on the final state
> or whether a change happened?
> 
> 
> The man page says:
>     If clustered locking is enabled, -ae will  activate  exclusively
>     on  one  node and -aly will activate only on the local node.
> 
> Note that it does *not* say -ae will activate exclusively on the
> *local* node.


I did say to Kevin that this was "controversial"!

patrick