Hi Andrew,

Thank you for comment.

> When stopping, you always want to use the old parameters (think of
> someone changing 'ip' for an IPaddr resource).
> Options that are interpreted by the crmd or lrmd are a different
> matter which resulted in:
>     
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/fcfe6fe522138343e4138248829926700fac213e
> 

All right.
Will you apply this correction to 1.0 of Pacemaker?

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.




--- On Fri, 2011/12/16, Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:45 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Dejan,
> >
> > Thank you for comment.
> >
> >> It looks like a wrong place for a fix. Shouldn't crmd send all
> >> environment? It is only by chance that we have the timeout value
> >> available in this function.
> >
> > In the case of stop, crmd does not ask lrmd for the substitution of the 
> > parameter. .
> >
> > (snip)
> >        /* reset the resource's parameters? */
> >        if(op->interval == 0) {
> >            if(safe_str_eq(CRMD_ACTION_START, operation)
> >               || safe_str_eq(CRMD_ACTION_STATUS, operation)) {
> >                op->copyparams = 1;
> >            }
> >        }
> > (snip)
> >
> > When the parameter of the resource is changed, I think this to be because I 
> > influence the stop of the resource of lrmd.
> > It is necessary for the changed parameter not to copy it.
> 
> When stopping, you always want to use the old parameters (think of
> someone changing 'ip' for an IPaddr resource).
> Options that are interpreted by the crmd or lrmd are a different
> matter which resulted in:
>     
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/fcfe6fe522138343e4138248829926700fac213e
> 
> >
> > My patch is an example when I handle it in lrmd.
> >
> > Is there a better patch?
> > * For example, it may be good to give copyparams a different value.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hideo Yamauchi.
> >
> >
> > --- On Thu, 2011/12/15, Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Hideo-san,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 06:21:00PM +0900, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > Hi All,
> >> >
> >> > I made the patch which revised the old next problem.
> >> >
> >> >  * http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/users/70262
> >> >
> >> > In consideration of influence when a parameter was changed, I replace 
> >> > only a value of timeout.
> >> >
> >> > Please confirm my patch.
> >> > And please commit a patch.
> >>
> >> It looks like a wrong place for a fix. Shouldn't crmd send all
> >> environment? It is only by chance that we have the timeout value
> >> available in this function.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Dejan
> >>
> >> > Best Regards,
> >> > Hideo Yamauchi.
> >>
> >>
> >> > _______________________________________________________
> >> > 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/
> >>
> > _______________________________________________________
> > 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/

Reply via email to