On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:21 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
Sure. We'll pick it up for .13 > > 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/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
