On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 09:37:15AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> I am curious why a lock manager uses open to implement its locking
> semantics rather than using the locking API (POSIX locks etc) however.
Because it is simple (how do you fcntl(2) from a shell fd?), has no
ranges (what do you do
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 12:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > - How are they ref counted
> > > - What are the cleanup semantics
> > > - How do I pass a lock between processes (AF_UNIX sockets wont work now)
> > > - How do I poll on a lock coming free.
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 12:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - How are they ref counted
> > - What are the cleanup semantics
> > - How do I pass a lock between processes (AF_UNIX sockets wont work now)
> > - How do I poll on a lock coming free.
> > - What are the semantics of lock ownership
>
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 02:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > create_lockspace()
> > > release_lockspace()
> > > lock()
> > > unlock()
> >
> > Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone
> > is likely to object i
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 05:24:33PM +0800, David Teigland wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
> > >
> >
> > inotify did that for a whil
On Sad, 2005-09-03 at 21:46 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
> lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
> me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to
> acquire a clust
On Llu, 2005-09-05 at 02:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > create_lockspace()
> > release_lockspace()
> > lock()
> > unlock()
>
> Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone
> is likely to object if we reserve those slots.
If the locks are not file descript
Hi,
On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:33, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > - read-only mount
> > - "specatator" mount (like ro but no journal allocated for the mount,
> > no fencing needed for failed node that was mounted as specatator)
>
> I'd call it "real-read-only", and yes, that's very usefull
> mount. Cou
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 02:19:48AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Four functions:
> > create_lockspace()
> > release_lockspace()
> > lock()
> > unlock()
>
> Neat. I'd be inclined to make them syscalls then. I don't suppose anyone
> is likely t
On Monday 05 September 2005 05:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
> David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
> > >
David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
> > >
> >
> > inotify did that for a while, but we ended up g
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:54:08AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
> >
>
> inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall
> interface.
>
> How fat is
David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We export our full dlm API through read/write/poll on a misc device.
>
inotify did that for a while, but we ended up going with a straight syscall
interface.
How fat is the dlm interface? ie: how many syscalls would it take?
-
To unsubscribe from
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:41:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What happens when we want to add some new primitive which has no
> > > posix-file analog?
> >
> > The point of dlmfs is not to express every primitive that the
> > DLM has. dlm
On Sunday 04 September 2005 03:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a
> syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API
> in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK. That's why I asked (thus
> far unsuccessfully
>takelock domainxxx lock1
>do sutff
>droplock domainxxx lock1
>
> When someone kills the shell, the lock is leaked, becuase droplock isn't
> called.
Why not open the lock resource (or the lock space) instead of
individual locks as file? It then looks like this:
open lock
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 02:18:36AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> take-and-drop-lock -d domainxxx -l lock1 -e "do stuff"
Ahh, but then you have to have lots of scripts somewhere in
path, or do massive inline scripts. especially if you want to take
another lock in there somewhere.
Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I can't see how that works easily. I'm not worried about a
> tarball (eventually Red Hat and SuSE and Debian would have it). I'm
> thinking about this shell:
>
> exec 7 do stuff
> exec 7
> If someone kills the shell while stu
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:18:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I thought I stated this in my other email. We're not intending
> > to extend dlmfs.
>
> Famous last words ;)
Heh, of course :-)
> I don't buy the general "fs is nice because we can script it" argument,
> really. You
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK ->
> > > trylock
> > > is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that -
> > > nobody over here care
Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:28:28AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a
> > syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API
> > in the future if it all comes unstuck
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > What would be an acceptable replacement? I admit that O_NONBLOCK -> trylock
> > is a bit unfortunate, but really it just needs a bit to express that -
> > nobody over here cares what it's called.
>
> The whole idea of reinterpretin
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:28:28AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> If there is already a richer interface into all this code (such as a
> syscall one) and it's feasible to migrate the open() tricksies to that API
> in the future if it all comes unstuck then OK.
> That's why I asked (thus far unsucces
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If the only user is their tools I would say let it go ahead and be cute, even
> sickeningly so. It is not supposed to be a general dlm api, at least that
> is
> my understanding. It is just supposed to be an interface for their tools.
> Of co
Mark Fasheh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
> > lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
> > me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file
On Sunday 04 September 2005 00:46, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright
> > clever.
>
> Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
> lock-manager trylock because they're k
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
> lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
> me. O_NONBLOCK means "open this file in nonblocking mode", not "attempt to
> acquire
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:52:29AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> You do have ->release and ->make_item/group.
->release is like kobject release. It's a free callback, not a
callback from close.
> If I may hand you a more substantive argument: you don't support user-driven
> creation of
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:41:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Are you saying that the posix-file lookalike interface provides access to
> part of the functionality, but there are other APIs which are used to
> access the rest of the functionality? If so, what is that interface, and
> why cannot
On Sunday 04 September 2005 01:00, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:51:10AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by configfs. It
> > is the same paradigm: drive the kernel logic from user-initiated vfs
> > methods. You already hav
Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What happens when we want to add some new primitive which has no posix-file
> > analog?
>
> The point of dlmfs is not to express every primitive that the
> DLM has. dlmfs cannot express the CR, CW, and PW levels of the VMS
> locking scheme.
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:51:10AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by configfs. It is
> the
> same paradigm: drive the kernel logic from user-initiated vfs methods. You
> already have nearly all the right methods in nearly all the right pl
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 09:46:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It would be much better to do something which explicitly and directly
> expresses what you're trying to do rather than this strange "lets do this
> because the names sound the same" thing.
So, you'd like a new flag name? Tha
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The model you came up with for dlmfs is beyond cute, it's downright clever.
Actually I think it's rather sick. Taking O_NONBLOCK and making it a
lock-manager trylock because they're kinda-sorta-similar-sounding? Spare
me. O_NONBLOCK means "open t
On Sunday 04 September 2005 00:30, Joel Becker wrote:
> You asked why dlmfs can't go into sysfs, and I responded.
And you got me! In the heat of the moment I overlooked the fact that you and
Greg haven't agreed to the merge yet ;-)
Clearly, I ought to have asked why dlmfs can't be done by confi
On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 12:22:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> It is 640 lines.
It's 450 without comments and blank lines. Please, don't tell
me that comments to help understanding are bloat.
> I said "configfs" in the email to which you are replying.
To wit:
> Daniel Phillips said
On Saturday 03 September 2005 23:06, Joel Becker wrote:
> dlmfs is *tiny*. The VFS interface is less than his claimed 500
> lines of savings.
It is 640 lines.
> The few VFS callbacks do nothing but call DLM
> functions. You'd have to replace this VFS glue with sysfs glue, and
> probably save
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:32:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> If there's duplicated code in there then we should seek to either make the
> code multi-purpose or place the common or reusable parts into a library
> somewhere.
Regarding sysfs and configfs, that's a whole 'nother
conversati
Joel Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:21:26PM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > that fit the configfs-nee-sysfs model? If it does, the payoff will be
> about
> > 500 lines saved.
>
> I'm still awaiting your merge of ext3 and reiserfs, because you
> can s
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 06:21:26PM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> that fit the configfs-nee-sysfs model? If it does, the payoff will be about
> 500 lines saved.
I'm still awaiting your merge of ext3 and reiserfs, because you
can save probably 500 lines having a filesystem that can creat
On Saturday 03 September 2005 02:46, Wim Coekaerts wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:42:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Friday 02 September 2005 20:16, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > > As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large
> > > part of the dlm interaction...
> >
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:42:36AM -0400, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Friday 02 September 2005 20:16, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > As far as userspace dlm apis go, dlmfs already abstracts away a large part
> > of the dlm interaction...
>
> Dumb question, why can't you use sysfs for this instead of rolli
inux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining
>
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:28:30PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > That's GFS. The submission is about a GFS2 that's
> on-disk incompatible
> > > to GFS.
> >
&
43 matches
Mail list logo
