From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Goldwyn Rodrigues Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:15:31 -0500 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/6] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v4 In-Reply-To: <20131018230658.GC4490@localhost> References: <20131018144449.GA4568@shrek.lan> <20131018130455.4b4dc370a7bbc6da235afb82@linux-foundation.org> <20131018230658.GC4490@localhost> Message-ID: <527257F3.2080704@suse.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com 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 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