From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Goldwyn Rodrigues Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Safeguard against writing to an active device of another node Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 10:54:48 -0500 Message-ID: <55BCEBC8.4040306@suse.de> 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> <55BCEABF.6060505@youngman.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55BCEABF.6060505@youngman.org.uk> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Wols Lists , NeilBrown , Guoqing Jiang Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids On 08/01/2015 10:50 AM, Wols Lists wrote: > 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? > That's exactly the case we are trying to cover in the above explanation. IOw, we would be using -ldl for runtime compatibility. If libdlm is not present, cluster functions will be resolved to null and will not be executed/allowed. -- Goldwyn