[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: No Cluster fun (split brain)

Jan Friesse jfriesse at redhat.com
Wed May 27 12:17:14 EDT 2015

Ulrich Windl napsal(a):
>>>> Jan Friesse <jfriesse at redhat.com> schrieb am 20.05.2015 um 13:24 in
> Nachricht
> <555C6F01.4000904 at redhat.com>:
>> Ulrich,
>> Ulrich Windl napsal(a):
>>>>>> Jan Pokorný<jpokorny at redhat.com> schrieb am 19.05.2015 um 20:38 in
>>> Nachricht
>>> <20150519183855.GK7411 at redhat.com>:
>>>> On 19/05/15 17:50 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>>> Now if the corosync guys would add comments to their C-code or at
>>>>> least would respond to inquiried to their advertised mailing list...
>>>> As I haven't found any posting of yours in dedicated corosync ML,
>>>> I suppose you are already referring to this very one per
>>>> "the advertisement":
>>> I only found the "discuss" mailing list, and I tried to subscribe, but
> never
>>> got anything since then. I also think I send a message to "discuss" a few 
>> days
>>> after subscribing, but still I got back nothing...
>> That's weird. There is really no mail from you on ML (even not in
>> pending for approval). Also you are really not in membership list.
> I found I had sent a message at " 15.05.2015 um 10:56 (MESZ)" to the list
> anyway.

Ok, but this really doesn't change any single thing on what I've wrote.

>> So I've just tried (successfully) subscribe coro ML. Manual: Go to
>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss, put your email
>> address to "Your email address:" field, click subscribe. You should get
>> email from discuss-request at corosync.org with subject "confirm
>> [0-9[a-f]*". Then just click on the link in the email and you should be
>> subscribed. If email doesn't arrived to you, please check your spam
>> folder or your mail server log if message was not trowed.
>> Also you've wrote directly to me and I've replied you giving you two
>> options where to send patches. ML or github pull (so use this option if
>> ML doesn't work for you).
> OK, some recent desaster prevented me to do any of the work I wanted to...
>>>> http://lists.corosync.org/pipermail/discuss/2015-February/003464.html 
>>>> FWIW, adding comments to the code after-the-fact is something highly
>>>> unlikely unless you want to take a part in that.  You have the
>>> Guessing from the code of a routine what the routine is probably meant to
> do
>>> is close to impossible, like guessing what the return codes try to say.
>>> To give others an impression how the typical code looks like, I pick a 
>> random
>>> routine from exec/coroparse.c (There really are no comments before that
>>> routine):
>>> ---snip---
>>> static char *strchr_rs (const char *haystack, int byte)
>>> {
>>>         const char *end_address = strchr (haystack, byte);
>>>         if (end_address) {
>>>                 end_address += 1; /* skip past { or = */
>>>                 end_address += strspn (end_address, " \t");
>>>         }
>>>         return ((char *) end_address);
>>> }
>>> ---
>> I strongly believe somebody who knows what strchr does is able to find
>> out quite quickly what strchr_rs does.
> You completely miss the idea of "procedural abstraction": If routines

This looks like personal attack, but I will try to ignore that.

> (procedures and functions) are to used as building blocks (black boxes) by
> anybody else rather than the original author (maybe it's even true for the
> author after a year or two), these routines should have a description of what
> they are supposed to do.
> Note: "supposed to do", not "do": If the implemenatation is wrong, you'll
> never find out otherwise.
> So "strchr_rs()" is described with the following comment:
> /* Cast signed int `byte' to a char to find that character in string
> `haystack'; if found add one to the address where `byte' was found  and then
> adds the number of spaces and TAB characters found at that address before it is
> returned. If `bytes' was not found return NULL */
> So you can see that the description is longer than the actual code, not
> meaning that the comment is bad, but probably the code is. Also the comment
> inside "/* skip past { or = */" is nonsense, because any character is skipped.

That code is pretty old. Actually it dates since very first version of
openais so that is simply reason for misleading comment.

> OK, just an example...

You are really free (and it will be more then welcomed) to post patches
(github pull requests).


> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

More information about the Users mailing list