[DLM] do full recover_locks barrier [44/70]

[Steven Whitehouse]

>From 4b77f2c93d052adca8cc8690b9b5e7f8798f4ddd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Teigland <teigland@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:31:48 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] [DLM] do full recover_locks barrier

Red Hat BZ 211914

The previous patch "[DLM] fix aborted recovery during
node removal" was incomplete as discovered with further testing.  It set
the bit for the RS_LOCKS barrier but did not then wait for the barrier.
This is often ok, but sometimes it will cause yet another recovery hang.
If it's a new node that also has the lowest nodeid that skips the barrier
wait, then it misses the important step of collecting and reporting the
barrier status from the other nodes (which is the job of the low nodeid in
the barrier wait routine).

Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 fs/dlm/recoverd.c |    8 +++++++-
 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/dlm/recoverd.c b/fs/dlm/recoverd.c
index 6e4ee94..8bb895f 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/recoverd.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/recoverd.c
@@ -168,9 +168,15 @@ static int ls_recover(struct dlm_ls *ls,
 		/*
 		 * Other lockspace members may be going through the "neg" steps
 		 * while also adding us to the lockspace, in which case they'll
-		 * be looking for this status bit during dlm_recover_locks().
+		 * be doing the recover_locks (RS_LOCKS) barrier.
 		 */
 		dlm_set_recover_status(ls, DLM_RS_LOCKS);
+
+		error = dlm_recover_locks_wait(ls);
+		if (error) {
+			log_error(ls, "recover_locks_wait failed %d", error);
+			goto fail;
+		}
 	}
 
 	dlm_release_root_list(ls);
-- 
1.4.1



-
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/