[ovirt-devel] Re: VDSM and safelease

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:07 PM Nir Soffer <nsoffer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo(a)redhat.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> I stumbled upon safelease package, introduced in oVirt 3.6. >> I realigned the spec file with Fedora Rawhide: >> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/99123/ >> and then I stopped working on it and decided to open a thread here. >>> safelease package is required in vdsm. >> I searched for the home page for this package since it moved and found: >> https://ovirt.org/develop/developer-guide/vdsm/safelease.html >> This says that sanlock is meant to obsolete safelease. >> I'm assuming that safelease was used in 3.6 and replaced later by >> sanlock then kept for backward compatibility. >> In 4.3 we dropped support for 3.6 level clusters, is this package still >> needed? >> safelease is our clusterlock with V1 storage domains - export and iso > domains. > https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968b... > https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320 > Once we remove these domains we can remove also safelease. > If it's still needed, why is it requiring: >> # Numactl is not available on s390[x] and ARM >> %ifnarch s390 s390x %{arm} >> Requires: numactl >> %endif >>> %ifarch x86_64 >> Requires: python2-dmidecode >> Requires: dmidecode >> Requires: virt-v2v >> %endif >> These are hacks Yaniv added so we can make vdsm noarch package. Since > then we reverted > back to vdsm arch specific package but the bad requirements remained in > safelease. > We can safely remove the requirements from safelease if vdsm requires > these packages, but > I'm not sure who has time to work on safelease. > I think it is time to remove export and iso domain in 4.4. Would it be possible? If an ovirt-4.3 storage pool has an ISO domain, and we add an ovirt-4.4 host to it, we would like it to be able to become SPM.