New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
common: FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported #5529
Conversation
From the manual of syncfs, it first appeared in Linux 2.6.39. At this point, btrfs didn't as a stable production. So remove this. Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com> (cherry picked from commit 397b261)
Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com> (cherry picked from commit 27cb78b)
Fixes: ceph#12512 Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com> (cherry picked from commit 08210d6)
85ed3d8
to
d0d6727
Compare
. . . and 9921836 is a no-brainer. |
Oh, if it's just a matter of ordering the commits, it's good. |
Well, the order is significant of course, but the question is more about On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Loic Dachary notifications@github.com
|
@smithfarm my understanding of the syncfs related issues is that it's a series of fixes that's not complete yet and that it is important to backport to firefly because it looks like syncfs is going to be removed completely. Therefore I think clustering the backports as you did not only makes sense but also prepares the ground for more backports to come. |
…pported Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
@tchaikov does this backport look good to merge ? It passed a run of the firefly rados suite ( see http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#note-110 ). Note that there was a valgrind issues but it is unrelated and fixed by #6325. |
…pported Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
@dachary and @smithfarm |
FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported Reviewed-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/12586