Bugfix for tdb transactions
Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Mon Feb 1 03:50:13 MST 2010
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:09:48AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 08:24:44PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 06:49:27 pm Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 06:01:12 pm Volker Lendecke wrote:
> > > > Before that is fixed, should we commit my patch to fix the
> > > > problem that happens without the kill -9?
> > >
> > > I prefer that. I like it from a simplicity point of view, even though the
> > > larger fix will revert it.
> > Actually, I changed my mind. Here is the simplest fix:
> Well, to be honest, I disagree. This changes the rules which
> locks are to be taken when a recovery is done. A
> semantically minimal fix would not change this.
Ok, another argument against the change in semantics: If you
put this into ctdb, i.e. changing the locking rules, then we
will have to import the same changes into Samba 3.4,
otherwise you will get screwups between those two if you run
them together. Samba 3.4 is not affected by this bug because
it does not contain b90863c0 which introduced it initially.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the samba-technical