64 bytes
to avoid some potential bugs. Besides, it's convenient to format write
it to file.
11)
>> > + * 'ensure sanlock socket is labelled with the VM process label',
>> > + * however, fixing sanlock socket security labelling remove
related
>> > + * code. Now, `fd` parameter is useless.
>> > + */
>> > + if (fd)
>> > + *fd = -1;
>
> But you just set it to -1??!
Maybe I can submit a patch to cut those code. Afterall it's useless now.
12)
>> > + virCheckFlags(0, -1);
>> > +
>> > + if (state)
>> > + *state = NULL;
>
> Why would this return NULL? My recollection is there is some sort of
> inquiry API for dlm.
Inquiry API is disappeared now... Only lock/unlock refered to libdlm
source code and reference book.
http://people.redhat.com/ccaulfie/docs/rhdlmbook.pdf
Chapter 4.3. Lock Query Operations
--
Regards
Lin Fu(river)
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
> How are locks acquired by libdlm scoped ? The reason we have virtlockd is
> that the fcntl() locks need to be held by a running process, and we wanted
> them to persist across libvirtd restarts. This required holding them in a
> separate process.
Locks are managed by 'dlm_controld' daemon.
