On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:50:01AM +0100, Michael Hanselmann wrote: > 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.
LGTM, thanks. iustin
