Am 15. November 2011 10:33 schrieb Iustin Pop <ius...@google.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 08:00:23AM +0100, Michael Hanselmann wrote:
>> + # Since modifying a node can have severe effects on currently running
>> + # operations the resource lock is at least acquired in shared mode
>> + self.needed_locks[locking.LEVEL_NODE_RES] = \
>> + self.needed_locks[locking.LEVEL_NODE]
>> +
>> + # Get node and instance locks in shared mode; they are not used for
>> + # anything but read-only access
>> + self.share_locks[locking.LEVEL_NODE_RES] = 1
>
> Comment says node, but lock is node res?
>
>> + self.share_locks[locking.LEVEL_INSTANCE] = 1
>
> Can't see from the context, but the node lock is still in exclusive,
> right?
>
> So maybe it's just comment typo…
It is, sorry. The first comment was right: the resource lock can be shared.
--- a/lib/cmdlib.py
+++ b/lib/cmdlib.py
@@ -5312,12 +5312,12 @@ class LUNodeSetParams(LogicalUnit):
# Since modifying a node can have severe effects on currently running
# operations the resource lock is at least acquired in shared mode
self.needed_locks[locking.LEVEL_NODE_RES] = \
self.needed_locks[locking.LEVEL_NODE]
- # Get node and instance locks in shared mode; they are not used for
- # anything but read-only access
+ # Get node resource and instance locks in shared mode; they are not used
+ # for anything but read-only access
self.share_locks[locking.LEVEL_NODE_RES] = 1
self.share_locks[locking.LEVEL_INSTANCE] = 1
if self.lock_instances:
self.needed_locks[locking.LEVEL_INSTANCE] = \
Michael
