[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/6] nocontrold: Eliminating ocfs2_controld v4

[Mark Fasheh]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:06:59PM -0700, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 01:04:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:44:54 -0500 Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn at suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > This is an effort of removing ocfs2_controld.pcmk and getting ocfs2 DLM
> > > handling up to the times with respect to DLM (>=4.0.1) and corosync
> > > (2.3.x). AFAIK, cman also is being phased out for a unified corosync
> > > cluster stack.
> > > 
> > > fs/dlm performs all the functions with respect to fencing and node
> > > management and provides the API's to do so for ocfs2. For all future
> > > references, DLM stands for fs/dlm code.
> > > 
> > > The advantages are:
> > >  + No need to run an additional userspace daemon (ocfs2_controld)
> > >  + No contrrold devince handling and controld protocol
> > >  + Shifting responsibilities of node management to DLM layer
> > > 
> > > For backward compatibility, we are keeping the controld handling code. Once
> > > enough time has passed we can remove a significant portion of the code.
> > > 
> > > This feature requires modification in the userspace ocfs2-tools.
> > > The changes can be found at:
> > > https://github.com/goldwynr/ocfs2-tools branch: nocontrold
> > > Currently, not many checks are present in the userspace code,
> > > but that would change soon.
> > > 
> > > These changes were developed on linux-stable 3.11.y. However, the 
> > > changes are applicable to the current upstream as well. If you wish
> > > to give the entire kernel a spin, the link is:
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/goldwynr/linux-stable branch: nocontrold
> > 
> > I queued this up so it will get some linux-next exposure when Stephen
> > gets back to his desk.  But I don't feel I can take it further without
> > suitable input from the other ocfs2 developers (please).
> 
> I thought I'd been pretty clear on the previous rounds.  The code had
> some significant issues in its approach to compatibility (it wasn't).  I
> haven't had a chance to look at this round yet, but I intend to soon.

FYI this round seems to include backwards compat code.


> Please do not forward this code without an explicit Acked-by from Mark
> or I.

By forward I assume you mean to Linus? I agree this doesn't want to go
upstream yet but since the backwards compat code is in now I think it's
probably a good thing that this gets tested in linux-next.
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh