CTDB with GlusterFS.
jra at samba.org
Thu Dec 10 00:39:38 UTC 2015
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:24:48PM +0100, Ralph Boehme wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:28:05AM +0100, Ralph Boehme wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:51:40PM +1100, Martin Schwenke wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:26:03 +0100, Ralph Boehme <rb at sernet.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:12:31PM +1100, Martin Schwenke wrote:
> > > > > This would allow you to test the fcntl(2) locking without having all of
> > > > > CTDB in the way.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're not a C programmer (though I think this could probably be
> > > > > done with Python too) then please yell and I'll whip something up for
> > > > > you to test with... :-)
> > > >
> > > > fwiw, I have this WIP patch for ping_pong in a working branch.
> > >
> > > I think we discussed this some time ago and some of us thought there
> > > were better ways. I think one reply was probably that it didn't
> > > belong in ping_pong. Also, Michael pointed out another way using
> > > existing ping_pong functionality.
> > >
> > > However, I think your patch creates a very obvious way of testing
> > > byte-range locks and we should think about how it can be cleaned
> > > up and pushed.
> > >
> > > You probably need to clean up the repetitive usage checking... :-)
> > I'll cleanup and resubmit later on today.
> updated patch attached.
> I could split the modification of lock_range() into a seperate commit
> if you prefer.
LGTM - pushed ! Nice work Ralph !
More information about the samba-technical