>>> Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> schrieb am 17.02.2014 um 02:33 in >>> Nachricht <[email protected]>:
> On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:38 pm, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> > wrote: [...] >> I did a quick check: It seems only "ocf:ocfs2:o2cb" does such (IMHO) > nonsense >> like removing a module on stop (I can guess it's a leftover from o2cb module >> hacking when the developer was too lazy to remove the module by hand when >> wanting to try a newer version): > > seems pretty reasonable to me. > stop == remove all trace of the active resource. > [...] But why doesn't the LVM RA try to remove the lvm module, and why doesn't the NFS RA try to remove the nfs module, etc. then? Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
