Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 3/3] sanlock: Properly init io_timeout

On 09/15/2016 10:35 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292984 > > Hold on to your hats, because this is gonna be wild. > > In bd3e16a3 I've tried to expose sanlock io_timeout. What I had > not realized (because there is like no documentation for sanlock > at all) was very unusual way their APIs work. Basically, what we > do currently is: > > sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout); > > which adds a lockspace to sanlock daemon. One would expect that > io_timeout sets the io_timeout for it. Nah! That's where you are > completely off the tracks. It sets timeout for next lockspace you > will probably add later. Therefore: > > sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout = 10); > /* adds new lockspace with default io_timeout */ > > sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout = 20); > /* adds new lockspace with io_timeout = 10 */ > > sanlock_add_lockspace_timeout(&ls, io_timeout = 40); > /* adds new lockspace with io_timeout = 20 */ > > And so on. You get the picture. > Fortunately, we don't allow setting io_timeout per domain or per > domain disk. So we just need to set the default used in the very > first step and hope for the best (as all the io_timeout-s used > later will have the same value). > > Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn(a)redhat.com&gt; > --- > src/locking/lock_driver_sanlock.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > Any thoughts about modifying src/locking/sanlock.conf in order add some text there that indicates support for 'io_timeout' requires at least sanlock 2.7 (or something similar).