On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 4:48 AM, Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> wrote:
> +typedef enum {
> + /* The values are ordered so that lower number implies higher
> restriction.
> + * Starting from 1 to make 0 an invalid value.
> + * */
> + BDRV_LOCKF_EXCLUSIVE = 1,
> + BDRV_LOCKF_SHARED,
> + BDRV_LOCKF_UNLOCK,
> +} BdrvLockfCmd;
> +
We started to talk about new APIs in librbd to support this feature
where we don't need to worry about admin action should QEMU crash
while holding the lock.
Any chance for separating the UNLOCK enum into the exclusive vs shared
case? We could do some magic in the rbd block driver to guess how it
was locked but it seems like it would be cleaner (at least for us) to
explicitly call out what type of unlock you are requesting since it
will involve different API methods.
--
Jason
