Hi, On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 01:27:55PM +0200, Florian Haas wrote: > On 2009-10-12 13:16, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > Hi Florian, > > > > This discussion digressed, and I'm not entirely happy with the > > current user interface/implementation. Do you intend to do > > something about it? > > Certainly: I just happen to be swamped at this point. :)
If you're swamped beyond recovery, I can do the changes :) The problem is that there may be a release and we don't want to release an interface which is going to change. > I must confess I am not entirely happy with the suggestions on the > table. Let's talk :) > AIUI, the currently prevalent notion is to check for the status > file only if $OCF_CHECK_LEVEL is set to nonzero. Right. > But that means I can't > create the status file on start, nor clean it up on stop -- as, when > $OCF_CHECK_LEVEL is defined on the monitor ops as the documentation > sensibly suggests, the check level is passed in only during the monitor > operation. I'd be grateful for suggestions here. For the read-only test, just do "ls -d $directory/." For the read-write test you'll have to rewrite a file anyway. As discussed, it'd be good to have some kind of default in this case, probably in an extra directory such as "./.Filesystem_monitor/". Cheers, Dejan > Cheers, > Florian > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
