LVM2 RFC: fix return code when exclusive activation fails

I've attached this patch to the bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208993

but I've yet to have any feed back on it, so I thought I'd post it here too.

Possibly the most controversial part of it (I suspect) will be the shifting up of the return codes, this is needed to keep INCOMPLETE in its rightful place in the severity stakes

patrick
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: incomplete.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3111 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/lvm-devel/attachments/20070105/99542398/attachment.bin>

I don't see that a new error code gains us anything there:

If operating on multiple objects and you need to know which ones did or didn't succeed, then you simply perform the operations separately.

Only use commands that operate on multiple objects when you aren't interested in knowing.

The bugzilla referenced is discussing "What precisely should -ae" mean? Should it be different from "-ael" ? Under precisely what sets of circumstances should it return an error, and based on the final state or whether a change happened?

The man page says:
If clustered locking is enabled, -ae will activate exclusively on one node and -aly will activate only on the local node.

Note that it does *not* say -ae will activate exclusively on the *local* node.

Alasdair

agk at redhat.com

I did say to Kevin that this was "controversial"!

patrick