Re: [linux-lvm] lvmlockd: about the limitation on lvresizing the LV active on multiple nodes

[Eric Ren <zren@suse.com>]

David,

On 01/03/2018 11:07 PM, David Teigland wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:52:34AM +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
>>> 1. one one node: lvextend --lockopt skip -L+1G VG/LV
>>>
>>>      That option doesn't exist, but illustrates the point that some new
>>>      option could be used to skip the incompatible LV locking in lvmlockd.
>> Hmm, is it safe to just skip the locking while the LV is active on other
>> node?
>> Is there somewhere in the code to avoid concurrent lvm command to execute
>> at the same time?
> The VG lock is still used to protect the VG metadata change.  The LV lock
> doesn't protect anything per se, it just represents that lvchange has
> activated the LV on this host.  (The LV lock does not represent the
> suspended/resumed state of the dm device either, as you suggested above.)

I see, thanks for you explanation!
> I'll send a simple patch to skip the lv lock to try this.

I've tested your patch and it works very well.  Thanks very much.

Regards,
Eric