Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] sanlock: Don't spam logs with "target pid not found"

On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 16:58:22 +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote: > Commit v1.2.4-52-gda879e5 fixed issues with domains started before > sanlock driver was enabled by checking whether a running domain is > registered with sanlock and if it's not, sanlock driver is basically > ignored for the domain. > > However, it was checking this even for domain which has just been > started and no sanlock_* API was called for them yet. This results in > > cmd 9 target pid 2135544 not found > > error messages to appear in sanlock.log whenever we start a new domain. > > This patch avoids this useless check for freshly started domains. > > Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar(a)redhat.com&gt; > --- > src/locking/domain_lock.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- > src/locking/lock_driver.h | 12 +++++++++++- > src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.c | 2 +- > src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c | 9 ++++++--- > src/locking/lock_manager.c | 2 +- > 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) ... > diff --git a/src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.c b/src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.c > index 8d184fe..72a4a0c 100644 > --- a/src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.c > +++ b/src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.c > @@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ static int virLockManagerLockDaemonNew(virLockManagerPtr lock, > virLockManagerLockDaemonPrivatePtr priv; > size_t i; > > - virCheckFlags(VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_USES_STATE, -1); > + virCheckFlags(VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_NEW_STARTED, -1); > > if (VIR_ALLOC(priv) < 0) > return -1; Confused with this weird change? So am I :-) The VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_USES_STATE should really have been 0 (as in the sanlock driver) since virLockManagerNew is never called with such a flag. However, should VIR_LOCK_MANAGER_USES_STATE be set to virLockDriverImpl.flags in src/locking/lock_driver_lockd.c, which should be the only usage of this flag in any lock driver? Sanlock sets the flag but should lock set it too or not?