On 8/25/2010 5:31 AM, Wengang Wang wrote: > It looks we can't move it to the very top. > The caller doesn't make sure we need to update lvb. In other words, it > treat the lockres' that need lvb and those don't the same. We have to > distinguish them in dlm_update_lvb() its self. And I think checking > DLM_LKSB_GET_LVB flag is the right place to place the assertion. > > Or do you meant we should treat different type (lvb needed or no) of > lockress differently in the callers?(though I don't think you meant this)
ok. > > Actually I alreay have another similar patch which dynamically allocates > lvb for dlm_lock. dlm_alloc_lvb() is used in that patch. So allocating > lvb is in a separated function. > Since the patch for dlm_lock is much more complex than this one, I > didn't post it out together before this one gets approved. > > Anyway if you persist, I can make it as you wanted. Then post both the patches. _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
