IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
A shortcut for --ignorelockingfailure, --ignoremonitoring, --poll n options
and LVM_SUPPRESS_LOCKING_FAILURE_MESSAGES environment variable used all at
once in initialisation scripts (e.g. rc.sysinit or initrd).
Because we have now strong rule for lock ordering:
- VG locks must be taken in alphabetical order
- ORPHAN locks must be the last
vgs_locked() is now not needed.
This fixes problem with orphan locking, e.g.
vgremove VG1 | vgremove VG2
lock(VG1) | lock(VG2)
lock(ORPHAN) | lock(ORPHAN) -> fail, non-blocking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578413
(More similar places in code.)
This patch adds a new implementation of locking function instead
of mlockall() that may lock way too much memory (>100MB).
New function instead uses mlock() system call and selectively locks
memory areas from /proc/self/maps trying to avoid locking areas
unused during lock-ed state.
Patch also adds struct cmd_context to all memlock() calls to have
access to configuration.
For backward compatibility functionality of mlockall()
is preserved with "activation/use_mlockall" flag.
As a simple check, locking and unlocking counts the amount of memory
and compares whether values are matching.
more descriptive message if locking fails instead of
"Locking type -1 initialisation failed."
Use read-only locking instead of misleading ignorelocking option
in message.
(This affects only cluster locking because only cluster
locking module set LCK_PRE_MEMLOCK.)
With currect code you get
# vgchange -a n
Internal error: _memlock_count has dropped below 0.
when using cluster locking.
It is caused by _unlock_memory calls here
if ((flags & (LCK_SCOPE_MASK | LCK_TYPE_MASK)) == LCK_LV_RESUME)
memlock_dec();
Unfortunately it is also (wrongly) called in immediate unlock
(when LCK_HOLD is not set) from lock_vol
(LCK_UNLOCK is misinterpreted as LCK_LV_RESUME).
Avoid this by comparing original flags and provide memlock
code type of operation (suspend/resume).
Add a new constraint that vgname locks must be obtained in
alphabetical order. At this point, we have test coverage for
the 3 commands affected - vgsplit, vgmerge, and vgrename.
Tests have been updated to cover these commands.
Going forward any command or library call that must obtain
more than one vgname lock must do so in alphabetical order.
Future patches will update lvm2app to enforce this ordering.
Author: Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@redhat.com>
We provide a lock type that behaves like no_locking, but is not
clustered. Moreover, it also forbids any write locks. This magically (and
consistently) prevents use of clustered VGs, or changing local VGs with
--ignorelockingfailure. As a bonus, we can remove the special hacks in a few
places. Of course, people looking for trouble can always set their locking_type
to 0 to override.
Current code, when need to ensure that volume is not
active on remote node, it need to try to exclusive
activate volume.
Patch adds simple clvmd command which queries all nodes
for lock for given resource.
The lock type is returned in reply in text.
(But code currently uses CR and EX modes only.)
As a simplification to the tools and further liblvm, this patch pushes
the setting of NON_BLOCKING lock flag inside the lock_vol() call.
The policy we set is if any existing VGs are currently locked, we
set the NON_BLOCKING flag.
Should be no functional change.
Very simple / crude method of removing 'is_static' from initialization.
Why should we require an application tell us whether it is linked
statically or dynamically to libLVM? If the application is linked
statically, but libraries exist and dlopen() calls succeed, why
do we care if it's statically linked?
