[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/6] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v4

[Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>]

Hi Joel/Mark,

On 10/18/2013 06:06 PM, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:04:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:44:54 -0500 Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>>> This is an effort of removing ocfs2_controld.pcmk and getting ocfs2 DLM
>>> handling up to the times with respect to DLM (>=4.0.1) and corosync
>>> (2.3.x). AFAIK, cman also is being phased out for a unified corosync
>>> cluster stack.
>>>
>>> fs/dlm performs all the functions with respect to fencing and node
>>> management and provides the API's to do so for ocfs2. For all future
>>> references, DLM stands for fs/dlm code.
>>>
>>> The advantages are:
>>>   + No need to run an additional userspace daemon (ocfs2_controld)
>>>   + No contrrold devince handling and controld protocol
>>>   + Shifting responsibilities of node management to DLM layer
>>>
>>> For backward compatibility, we are keeping the controld handling code. Once
>>> enough time has passed we can remove a significant portion of the code.
>>>
>>> This feature requires modification in the userspace ocfs2-tools.
>>> The changes can be found at:
>>> https://github.com/goldwynr/ocfs2-tools branch: nocontrold
>>> Currently, not many checks are present in the userspace code,
>>> but that would change soon.
>>>
>>> These changes were developed on linux-stable 3.11.y. However, the
>>> changes are applicable to the current upstream as well. If you wish
>>> to give the entire kernel a spin, the link is:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/goldwynr/linux-stable branch: nocontrold
>>
>> I queued this up so it will get some linux-next exposure when Stephen
>> gets back to his desk.  But I don't feel I can take it further without
>> suitable input from the other ocfs2 developers (please).
>
> I thought I'd been pretty clear on the previous rounds.  The code had
> some significant issues in its approach to compatibility (it wasn't).  I
> haven't had a chance to look at this round yet, but I intend to soon.
>
> Please do not forward this code without an explicit Acked-by from Mark
> or I.
>

Did you get a chance to review this?


-- 
Goldwyn