Hi,
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 11:33 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 05:01:18PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:59 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 03:56:05PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Wed,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:35:17AM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
The question really is why we have all these (apparently) different
ideas of cluster membership. Looking at gfs_controld itself, it uses two
CPGs (one for all gfs_controlds which seems to only be used in
negotiating the
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:53 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:55:04PM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
gfs_controld: Remove three unused functions
These functions are not called from anywhere and appear
to be left over from earlier times.
They were just
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:59 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 03:56:05PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:53 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:55:04PM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
gfs_controld: Remove three
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 05:01:18PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 10:59 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 03:56:05PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:53 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:55:04PM +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
gfs_controld: Remove three unused functions
These functions are not called from anywhere and appear
to be left over from earlier times.
They were just added, but in translating the dlm_controld patch to
gfs_controld I missed
