[Linux-cluster] Re: GFS, what's remaining

[Andrew Morton]

Joel Becker <Joel.Becker at oracle.com> 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</dlm/domainxxxx/lock1
>  	do stuff
>  	exec 7</dev/null
> 
>  If someone kills the shell while stuff is doing, the lock is unlocked
>  because fd 7 is closed.  However, if you have an application to do the
>  locking:
> 
>  	takelock domainxxx lock1
>  	do sutff
>  	droplock domainxxx lock1
> 
>  When someone kills the shell, the lock is leaked, becuase droplock isn't
>  called.  And SEGV/QUIT/-9 (especially -9, folks love it too much) are
>  handled by the first example but not by the second.


	take-and-drop-lock -d domainxxx -l lock1 -e "do stuff"