On 17 Feb 2014, at 6:39 pm, Ulrich Windl <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> schrieb am 17.02.2014 um 02:33 in >>>> Nachricht > <[email protected]>: > >> On 11 Feb 2014, at 10:38 pm, Ulrich Windl >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: > > [...] >>> I did a quick check: It seems only "ocf:ocfs2:o2cb" does such (IMHO) >> nonsense >>> like removing a module on stop (I can guess it's a leftover from o2cb module >>> hacking when the developer was too lazy to remove the module by hand when >>> wanting to try a newer version): >> >> seems pretty reasonable to me. >> stop == remove all trace of the active resource. >> > [...] > > But why doesn't the LVM RA try to remove the lvm module, and why doesn't the > NFS RA try to remove the nfs module, etc. then? No idea, I didn't write those either. Perhaps they should
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
