Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 13:46:23 -0500
From: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: clustered MD
Message-ID: <20150612184623.GA5130@redhat.com>
References: <20150609182102.GA4305@redhat.com>
 <55773DE1.7080107@suse.com>
 <20150609194505.GA17536@redhat.com>
 <557747AB.7080706@suse.com>
 <20150609203056.GB17536@redhat.com>
 <5577AFF4.6020505@suse.com>
 <20150610150151.GA333@redhat.com>
 <20150611063131.51fa2ddb@home.neil.brown.name>
 <20150610210744.GG333@redhat.com>
 <20150611085034.6b34955c@home.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150611085034.6b34955c@home.neil.brown.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 772
Lines: 14

When a node fails, its dirty areas get special treatment from other nodes
using the area_resyncing() function.  Should the suspend_list be created
before any reads or writes from the file system are processed by md?  It
seems to me that gfs journal recovery could read/write to dirty regions
(from the failed node) before md was finished setting up the suspend_list.
md could probably prevent that by using the recover_prep() dlm callback to
set a flag that would block any i/o that arrived before the suspend_list
was ready.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/