Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 05 Feb, 2007 7 commits
    • David Teigland's avatar
      [DLM] fix lost flags in stub replies · 075529b5
      David Teigland authored 
      When the dlm fakes an unlock/cancel reply from a failed node using a stub
message struct, it wasn't setting the flags in the stub message.  So, in
the process of receiving the fake message the lkb flags would be updated
and cleared from the zero flags in the message.  The problem observed in
tests was the loss of the USER flag which caused the dlm to think a user
lock was a kernel lock and subsequently fail an assertion checking the
validity of the ast/callback field.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
      075529b5
    • David Teigland's avatar
      [DLM] fix receive_request() lvb copying · 8d07fd50
      David Teigland authored 
      LVB's are not sent as part of new requests, but the code receiving the
request was copying data into the lvb anyway.  The space in the message
where it mistakenly thought the lvb lived actually contained the resource
name, so it wound up incorrectly copying this name data into the lvb.  Fix
is to just create the lvb, not copy junk into it.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
      8d07fd50
    • David Teigland's avatar
      [DLM] fix send_args() lvb copying · da49f36f
      David Teigland authored 
      The send_args() function is used to copy parameters into a message for a
number different message types.  Only some of those types are set up
beforehand (in create_message) to include space for sending lvb data.
send_args was wrongly copying the lvb for all message types as long as the
lock had an lvb.  This means that the lvb data was being written past the
end of the message into unknown space.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
      da49f36f
    • David Teigland's avatar
      [DLM] add version check · 9e971b71
      David Teigland authored 
      Check if we receive a message from another lockspace member running a
version of the dlm with an incompatible inter-node message protocol.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
      9e971b71
    • David Teigland's avatar
      [DLM] fix old rcom messages · 38aa8b0c
      David Teigland authored 
      A reply to a recovery message will often be received after the relevant
recovery sequence has aborted and the next recovery sequence has begun.
We need to ignore replies to these old messages from the previous
recovery.  There's already a way to do this for synchronous recovery
requests using the rc_id number, but not for async.

Each recovery sequence already has a locally unique sequence number
associated with it.  This patch adds a field to the rcom (recovery
message) structure where this recovery sequence number can be placed,
rc_seq.  When a node sends a reply to a recovery request, it copies the
rc_seq number it received into rc_seq_reply.  When the first node receives
the reply to its recovery message, it will check whether rc_seq_reply
matches the current recovery sequence number, ls_recover_seq, and if not
then it ignores the old reply.

An old, inadequate approach to filtering out old replies (checking if the
current stage of recovery has moved back to the start) has been removed
from two spots.

The protocol version number is changed to reflect the different rcom
structures.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
      38aa8b0c
    • David Teigland's avatar
      [DLM] fix resend rcom lock · dc200a88
      David Teigland authored 
      There's a chance the new master of resource hasn't learned it's the new
master before another node sends it a lock during recovery.  The node
sending the lock needs to resend if this happens.

- A sends a master lookup for resource R to C
- B sends a master lookup for resource R to C
- C receives A's lookup, assigns A to be master of R and
  sends a reply back to A
- C receives B's lookup and sends a reply back to B saying
  that A is the master
- B receives lookup reply from C and sends its lock for R to A
- A receives lock from B, doesn't think it's the master of R
  and sends an error back to B
- A receives lookup reply from C and becomes master of R
- B gets error back from A and resends its lock back to A
  (this resending is what this patch does)
- A receives lock from B, it now sees it's the master of R
  and takes the lock
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
      dc200a88
    • David Teigland's avatar
      [GFS2] don't try to lockfs after shutdown · c3780511
      David Teigland authored 
      If an fs has already been shut down, a lockfs callback should do nothing.
An fs that's been shut down can't acquire locks or do anything with
respect to the cluster.

Also, remove FIXME comment in withdraw function.  The missing bits of the
withdraw procedure are now all done by user space.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarSteven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
      c3780511
  3. 04 Feb, 2007 3 commits
  5. 03 Feb, 2007 11 commits
  7. 02 Feb, 2007 19 commits
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7