From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Milan Broz Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:56:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Avoid recursive calls from dmeventd to itself In-Reply-To: <87y5wsq5l9.fsf@aldalome.int.mornfall.net.> References: <8739gh3w98.fsf@aldalome.int.mornfall.net.> <20110901194235.GA4025@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com> <87ippb2jne.fsf@aldalome.int.mornfall.net.> <87y5wsq5l9.fsf@aldalome.int.mornfall.net.> Message-ID: <4E9D7760.6050400@redhat.com> List-Id: To: lvm-devel@redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/10/2011 04:33 PM, Petr Rockai wrote: > Petr Rockai writes: > >>> It might be a little more code, but I'd rather see it a property of the handle >>> never to perform dmeventd monitoring calls. We never fixed handle init to >>> take multiple settings, so maybe call >>> void lvm2_disable_dmeventd_monitoring(void *handle) >>> after handle initialisation to set DMEVENTD_MONITOR_DISABLED and have that take >>> precedence over any later attempt to enable monitoring. >> >> This sounds like a better option. Now that raises the question why we >> aren't doing the same thing for memlock_{inc,dec}? We should certainly >> unify these two things. I'll have a look, and unless I run into a >> stumbling block will submit a patch to do that. > > The patch doing that is attached. Seems straightforward enough to me. We > can change the memlock interface to be the same, too. ack. Milan