Re: [PATCH 1b/7] dlm: core locking

[Daniel Phillips]

On Wednesday 27 April 2005 09:41, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> ...I assume that the delivery of a "node down" membership event
> implies that said node also has been fenced.
>
> So we can't deliver it raw membership events. Noted.

Just to pick a nit: there is no way to be sure a membership event might not 
still be on the way to the dead node, however the rest of the cluster knows 
the node is dead and can ignore it, in theory.  (In practice, only (g)dlm and 
gfs are well glued into the cman membership protocol, and other components, 
e.g., cluster block devices and applications, need to be looked at with 
squinty eyes.)

Regards,

Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/