From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <514B591B.7070305@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:01:47 +0100
From: Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1363699970-10002-1-git-send-email-bubble@hoster-ok.com>
	<1363699970-10002-11-git-send-email-bubble@hoster-ok.com>
	<20130319153215.GB986@redhat.com> <5148874A.2060106@hoster-ok.com>
	<20130319155456.GC986@redhat.com> <514897BE.90609@hoster-ok.com>
	<20130319171608.GE986@redhat.com>
	<5148A215.7080004@hoster-ok.com> <51497718.5080209@redhat.com>
	<514B521D.7080805@hoster-ok.com>
In-Reply-To: <514B521D.7080805@hoster-ok.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] [PATCH 10/10] man: document --node option to
	lvchange
Reply-To: LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@redhat.com>
List-Id: LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm.redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/linux-lvm>,
	<mailto:linux-lvm-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-lvm@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-lvm-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm>,
	<mailto:linux-lvm-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: <linux-lvm.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble@hoster-ok.com>
Cc: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>, LVM general discussion and development <linux-lvm@redhat.com>

Dne 21.3.2013 19:31, Vladislav Bogdanov napsal(a):
> 20.03.2013 11:45, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> ...
>>
>> (BTW there is already one thing which will surely not pass - it's the
>> 'node' option for lvm command - this would have to be made diferently).
>
> clvmd uses term 'node' internally. And that is the most right term for
> what it means IMHO.
>

Yes - in clvmd locking layer it's ok - but  lvm namespace stays aways from 
this layer. Thus lvm is not aware of any locking mechanism.. So the thing 
would have to be handle via activation lock flags and as I've said - the 
protocol used there (lvm  <-> clvmd) is quite fragile.

Zdenek