Ryan, problem of different TZ, so If I say tomorrow, I mean tomorrow (like time I'm sending this mail). Anyway, it looks like you were able to find the bug and fixed it, so now it works perfectly (without saLckDispatch/2-3.c and saLckResourceUnlockAsync/3.c, we are passing 100%).
Ryan O'Hara wrote: > Where is the BZ? I have no information about what the problem is, how > to reproduce it, etc. I really need to try to fix this today since we > are hoping to release today. Please provide information ASAP. > > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 05:48:21PM +0200, Jan Friesse wrote: >> Ryan, >> this patch causes fall of corosync on assert (cleanup != NULL) in one of >> test (not sure which, I will explore it more tomorrow). Are you 100% >> sure that this patch is correct? >> >> Anyway, I will fill bugzilla for you >> >> Regards, >> Honza >> >> Ryan O'Hara wrote: >>> When calling saLckResourceClose, we must remove that resource from the >>> cleanup list for the process calling saLckResourceClose. Without this, >>> it is possible that when the process exits and calls lck_lib_exit_fn, >>> the resource will have its reference count decremented again. This can >>> result in a resource not being removed correctly, since reference >>> count would be corrupt and would fail the the check we make before >>> removing a resource. >>> >>> Once the details of the problem (and test case) are sorted out, the >>> fix is obvious: remove the resource from the cleanup list for every >>> close. >>> >>> Thanks for Honza for finding this and Steve for his help diagnosing >>> the problem. >>> >>> Ryan >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openais mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais _______________________________________________ Openais mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/openais
