From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wols Lists <antlists@youngman.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Safeguard against writing to an active device of
 another node
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2015 16:50:23 +0100
Message-ID: <55BCEABF.6060505@youngman.org.uk>
References: <1436172732-21021-1-git-send-email-gqjiang@suse.com> <1436172732-21021-3-git-send-email-gqjiang@suse.com> <20150729172853.33d44808@noble> <55B8ADE1.1060708@suse.com> <20150730080247.20f03d23@noble> <55B96474.6080604@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <55B96474.6080604@suse.de>
Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, Guoqing Jiang <gqJiang@suse.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-raid.ids

On 30/07/15 00:40, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering if we could make it a run-time dependency though .. a
>> bit like get_cluster_name.  We can still do that later I guess.  I'm
>> not really sure what is best at the moment.
>>
> 
> 
> Yes, I would second that: Making these functions a run-time dependency.
> We should have the ability for it to work by just installing libdlm
> (with the proper flags set), rather than recompiling the package for
> cluster features.

Or - maybe unlikely but maybe not - what happens if somebody installs a
binary that was built on a system WITH dlm, but is meant to run on a
system WITHOUT dlm?

Actually, wouldn't that be the typical case for a typical distro?

Cheers,
Wol