On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 19:06 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
Could you merge RA and Xia patch ?
Merged.
If the problem happened, I think that I want to fix it after this patch
merged.
Thanks!
Regards,
Jiaju
Sincerely,
Yuichi
2013/4/10 Yuichi SEINO
Hi Jiaju,
Could you merge RA and Xia patch ?
If the problem happened, I think that I want to fix it after this patch merged.
Sincerely,
Yuichi
2013/4/10 Yuichi SEINO seino.clust...@gmail.com:
Hi,
I still should not accept a reply from anyone. Hopefully, I think that
I want to early fix
Hi,
I still should not accept a reply from anyone. Hopefully, I think that
I want to early fix this issue.
Sincerely,
Yuichi
2013/3/19 Yuichi SEINO seino.clust...@gmail.com:
Hi Xia and Jiaju,
Because RA may read an unintended file, I think that it is better to
check the existence of
Hi Xia and Jiaju,
Because RA may read an unintended file, I think that it is better to
check the existence of lockfile in RA. I detailed a previous mail.
What do you think about this?
If you agrees to this, Could you fix RA?
Sincerely,
Yuichi
2013/2/25 Yuichi SEINO seino.clust...@gmail.com:
Hi Jiaju,
2013/2/22 Jiaju Zhang jjzh...@suse.de:
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 16:26 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
I am testing this patch.
When a lockfile was removed, it seems that the stop of RA isn't a
intended behavior.
I'm just curious how the lockfile was removed. Basically the
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 16:26 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
I am testing this patch.
When a lockfile was removed, it seems that the stop of RA isn't a
intended behavior.
I'm just curious how the lockfile was removed. Basically the existence
of the lockfile shows one boothd is started,
Hi Jiaju,
I am testing this patch.
When a lockfile was removed, it seems that the stop of RA isn't a
intended behavior. Currently, If pidnum is empty, RA run cat
/proc//cmdline. /proc/cmdline is boot parameter file. So, I added the
check about a existence of lockfile.
diff --git
Hi Xia,
I have a question about the following part. The write man explain that
errno is set appropriately if the write return -1. So, if rv is
equal to 0, strerror(errno) may not output the correct message. What
do you think about it?
+ rv = write(fd, buf, strlen(buf));
+ if (rv = 0) {
+
Hi Yuichi,
On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 10:27 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Xia,
I have a question about the following part. The write man explain that
errno is set appropriately if the write return -1. So, if rv is
equal to 0, strerror(errno) may not output the correct message. What
do you think
Hi Yuichi
On 2/5/2013 at 10:46 AM, in message
camb0o5lthmeh+nq-jexskdu+rha2gkgy7yqt1tjwyajkqn1...@mail.gmail.com, Yuichi
SEINO seino.clust...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Xia,
I watched your patch. Probably, I think that this patch has a problem
with the following check. Do you need if rv is
Hi Xia,
Thanks for the patch. I have a question.
Following errors always be output. Are you correct about the log level?
If this isn't a error, it would be better to output as a log info.
And, I attached the log.
ERROR: lseek set offset to 0 error: 4: Success
or
ERROR: lseek set offset to 0
Hi Yuichi
I create two patches trying to fix this issue.
In these patches, expand lockfile() to let it not only record the daemon pid,
but also record daemon starting status(include starting and started) .
At the same time, modify the logic of the controld RA, so that it can read
that status
Hi Yuichi
On 1/31/2013 at 02:05 PM, in message
510a7a3502156...@soto.provo.novell.com, Xia Li x...@suse.com
wrote:
Hi Yuichi
I create two patches trying to fix this issue.
In these patches, expand lockfile() to let it not only record the daemon
pid,
but also record
Hi Jiaju,
I understood about the complete solution.
However because this issue causes the critical problem that multiple
resources start, Could you apply this request or simply revert a
commit to tentatively handle this issue until you are resolved at the
summer? I think that we are difficult to
Hi Yuichi,
On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 17:02 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
I try fixing this issue by reverting a commit. What do you think about it?
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/pull/48
Moving the while setup stage before daemonizing seems not to be a sane
solution. setup_ticket()
Hi Jiaju,
I try fixing this issue by reverting a commit. What do you think about it?
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/pull/48
Sincerely,
Yuichi
2013/1/11 Yuichi SEINO seino.clust...@gmail.com:
Hi Jiaju,
2013/1/11 Jiaju Zhang jjzh...@suse.de:
Hi Yuichi,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 19:39 +0900,
Hi Yuichi,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 19:39 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
I have a suggestion about this issue. Could you revert the following commit?
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/commit/4b00d46480f45a205f2550ff0760c8b372009f7f
Because the suitable log can't be output, we took in
Hi Jiaju,
2013/1/11 Jiaju Zhang jjzh...@suse.de:
Hi Yuichi,
On Wed, 2013-01-09 at 19:39 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
I have a suggestion about this issue. Could you revert the following commit?
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/commit/4b00d46480f45a205f2550ff0760c8b372009f7f
Hi Jiaju,
I have a suggestion about this issue. Could you revert the following commit?
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/commit/4b00d46480f45a205f2550ff0760c8b372009f7f
Because the suitable log can't be output, we took in this fix. Even If
this commit is reverted, the behavior of booth should
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 15:44 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
2012/12/18 Jiaju Zhang jjzh...@suse.de:
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 10:40 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
Perhaps, this problem didn't happen before the following commit.
Hi Jiaju,
2012/12/18 Jiaju Zhang jjzh...@suse.de:
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 10:40 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
Perhaps, this problem didn't happen before the following commit.
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/commit/4b00d46480f45a205f2550ff0760c8b372009f7f
Currently when
On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 10:40 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
Perhaps, this problem didn't happen before the following commit.
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/commit/4b00d46480f45a205f2550ff0760c8b372009f7f
Currently when all of the initialization (including loading the new
Hi Jiaju,
Perhaps, this problem didn't happen before the following commit.
https://github.com/jjzhang/booth/commit/4b00d46480f45a205f2550ff0760c8b372009f7f
Currently when all of the initialization (including loading the new
ticket information) finished, booth should be regarded as
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 12:01 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
2012/12/12 Jiaju Zhang jjzh...@suse.de:
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 20:15 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
Currently, booth is the state of started on pacemaker before booth
writes ticket information in cib. So, If the
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 20:15 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
Currently, booth is the state of started on pacemaker before booth
writes ticket information in cib. So, If the old ticket information is
included in cib, a resource relating to the ticket may start before
booth resets the
Hi Jiaju,
2012/12/12 Jiaju Zhang jjzh...@suse.de:
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 20:15 +0900, Yuichi SEINO wrote:
Hi Jiaju,
Currently, booth is the state of started on pacemaker before booth
writes ticket information in cib. So, If the old ticket information is
included in cib, a resource relating
Hi Jiaju,
Currently, booth is the state of started on pacemaker before booth
writes ticket information in cib. So, If the old ticket information is
included in cib, a resource relating to the ticket may start before
booth resets the ticket. I think that this problem is when to be
daemon in booth.
27 matches
Mail list logo
