From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:43:45 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] fix some issues in clvmd initscript
In-Reply-To: <4C077B2B.5030206@redhat.com>
References: <4BFD1B92.9080403@redhat.com> <4C07543C.5040908@redhat.com>
	<4C077B2B.5030206@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4C079571.1050409@redhat.com>
List-Id: <lvm-devel.redhat.com>
To: lvm-devel@redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/3/2010 11:51 AM, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 06/03/2010 09:05 AM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>> On 5/26/2010 3:01 PM, Milan Broz wrote:
>>> - if daemon is already running, do nothing (and not reactivate VGs)
>>>
>>> - always explicitly return exit code in reload()
>>>
>>> - fix restart() so it really tries full start & stop and returns exit code
>>>   if clvmd -S fails and also touch lockfile afterwards
>>>
>>> --- clvmd.old	2010-05-26 14:21:15.000000000 +0200
>>> +++ clvmd	2010-05-26 14:55:17.671245376 +0200
>>> @@ -63,11 +63,12 @@ rh_status_q() {
>>>  
>>>  start()
>>>  {
>>> -	if ! rh_status_q; then
>>> -		echo -n "Starting $DAEMON: "
>>> -		daemon $DAEMON $CLVMDOPTS || return $?
>>> -		echo
>>> -	fi
>>> +
>>> +	rh_status_q && return 0
>>> +
>>> +	echo -n "Starting $DAEMON: "
>>> +	daemon $DAEMON $CLVMDOPTS || return $?
>>> +	echo
>>
>> careful with this change as it modifies the behavior compared to the old
>> init script.
> 
> So you want reactivate LVs even if clvmd is already running?

Let me get this right :) I don?t care either way. Whatever the team
wants is fine. I am only noticing that this a behavior change vs the old
init script.

Fabio