Re: [libvirt] RFC: Introduce a dlm-corosync for Lock manager plugin

Locks are managed by 'dlm_controld' daemon. There is a flag marked as `LKF_PERSISTENT` could archive the purpose that locks still exist after restarting libvirtd. And within my current cognition, lock would only disappear after rebooting OS, (not release the locks manually); at the same time, other nodes in clusters could recovery the lock context. So why do I talk about virtlockd? It about the lockid. And what is lockid? In dlm, there are concepts about 'lockspace', 'resource' and 'lockid'. The relationship: multiple locks could be associated with the same resource, one lockspace could be added in multiple resource. When acquire a lock for the resource, lockid is returned by acquiring API call. Question: How could I know that which lockid is associated with the clear resource? After all, all lockid information will be lost after rebooting libvirtd in generally. I think about some resolution: one is using virtlockd to maintain those information, another is use some ways(such as share memory, write it to disk) to persistent information Fortunately, maybe I don't have to use virtlockd. LVM project also use the dlm, I could to refer it's implements. ----- link correction: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378241 -- Regards River