From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Beekhof <andrew@beekhof.net>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:19:58 +0200
Subject: [Cluster-devel] [PATCH] dlm_controld.pcmk: Fix membership
	change judging issue
In-Reply-To: <20100513183215.GP20952@suse.de>
References: <20100513084926.GA30727@linux-jjzhang>
	<20100513095117.GM20952@suse.de>
	<AANLkTiknBO5iIivtVWjxd8dsT8u9bMQMoplogZa4phOX@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100513183215.GP20952@suse.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinW0yCHdfQOHpUecmLoQ4npmBqXAj1COlPndl1q@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: <cluster-devel.redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@novell.com> wrote:
> On 2010-05-13T18:25:42, Andrew Beekhof <andrew@beekhof.net> wrote:
>
>> >> ?void process_cluster(int ci)
>> >> ?{
>> >> - ? ?ais_dispatch(ais_fd_async, NULL);
>> >> ? ? ?update_cluster();
>> >> ?}
>> >
>> > Can this function be removed?
>>
>> No, it can't.
>> Remove that and the membership (and crm_peer_id_cache) stops being updated.
>>
>> Which makes me very suspicious of the whole patch because it clearly
>> wasn't tested very well.
>
> ais_dispatch() was moved to update_cluster(). That's safe, it seems.

But pointless and unrelated to the problem, so why include it?

> My question related to the detail that now process_cluster() is
> identical to update_cluster(), at initial reading suggesting the
> function might be redundant now.

process_cluster() and update_cluster() are both API entry points.


Does the behavior still occur with pacemaker 1.1.2?