[Cluster-devel] [PATCH 5/5] gfs2: dlm based recovery coordination

[Steven Whitehouse]

Hi,

On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 10:21 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:08:15AM -0500, Bob Peterson wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > | This new method of managing recovery is an alternative to
> > | the previous approach of using the userland gfs_controld.
> > | 
> > | - use dlm slot numbers to assign journal id's
> > | - use dlm recovery callbacks to initiate journal recovery
> > | - use a dlm lock to determine the first node to mount fs
> > | - use a dlm lock to track journals that need recovery
> > | 
> > | Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland at redhat.com>
> > | ---
> > | --- a/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> > | +++ b/fs/gfs2/lock_dlm.c
> > (snip)
> > | +#include <linux/gfs2_ondisk.h>
> > |  #include <linux/gfs2_ondisk.h>
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Dave, are you going to post a replacement patch or addendum patch
> > that addresses Steve's concerns, such as the above?
> > I'd like to review this, but I want the review the latest/greatest.
> 
> I haven't resent the patches after making the changes (which were fairly
> minor.)  I'll resend them shortly for another check before a pull request.
> 
> Dave
> 

I think it would be a good plan to not send this last patch for the
current merge window and let it settle for a bit longer. Running things
so fine with the timing makes me nervous bearing in mind the number of
changes, and that three issues have been caught in the last few days.

Lets try and resolve the remaining points and then we can have something
really solid ready for the next window. I don't think there is any
particular rush to get it in at the moment.

I know its taken a bit longer than is ideal to get through the review,
but we've had a major holiday in the way which hasn't helped,

Steve.