On Friday September 6, juang@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Christoph, Alan, Neil,
>
> Attached you will find the patch with the sysctl implementation of my
> previous patch to enable grace period control from user-land.
> Please let me know if this looks good enough for inclusion in the kernel
> distribution or whether I still need to do something else.
> Note this piece is derived from net/sunrpc/sysctl.c, which by the way I
> think has a problem with the READ/WRITE verifys which seem
> to be swicthed which I fixed in lockd version but not there, you may want
> to take a look at net/sunrpc/sysctl.c and fix that although that's a minor
> thing.
>
> (See attached file: lockd-sysctl.patch)
>
I still haven't managed to find out exactly what you want to do with
this, and hence whether it is appropriate.
You mentioned in another Email that this was for a High Availability
setup where one server might take-over a filesystem that another
server was previously serving.
If this is the case, do you really want to change the grace period, or
do you really want to re-start the grace period.
If that is what you really want, then I think that sysctl is
un-necessary and a simple signal would do the trick.
Currently, SIGKILL will
1/ drop all locks held for clients
2/ restart the grace period.
it would probably be quite sensible (and trivial to code) for SIGHUP
(say) to restart the grace period without dropping the locks.
Would this be suitable for you?
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:15 EST