Skip to content
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

Merged
5 commits merged into from Oct 22, 2015

Conversation

smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor

@smithfarm smithfarm self-assigned this Aug 10, 2015
@smithfarm smithfarm added this to the firefly milestone Aug 10, 2015
@smithfarm smithfarm changed the title FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported [DNM] FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported Aug 10, 2015
majianpeng and others added 5 commits August 14, 2015 16:53
In commit 808c644, it will try sync() if syncfs() return error.
No evidence prove this way can work. And sync() don't return result
so make this function always return zero which cause filestore omit the
error.

Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
(cherry picked from commit 3f7faa4)
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)
Fix for:

CID 1264460 (#1 of 1): Structurally dead code (UNREACHABLE)
unreachable: This code cannot be reached: sync();

Signed-off-by: Danny Al-Gaaf <danny.al-gaaf@bisect.de>
(cherry picked from commit 9921836)
Fixes: ceph#12512
Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 08210d6)
@smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dachary The latest commits demonstrate that when I cherry-pick #3305 and 9921836 first, the cherry-pick of 08210d6 applies cleanly. True, #3305 was not originally slated for backport to firefly, but it looks like it fixes a bug that is present in firefly.

@smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor Author

. . . and 9921836 is a no-brainer.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 14, 2015

Oh, if it's just a matter of ordering the commits, it's good.

@smithfarm
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, the order is significant of course, but the question is more about
whether it's OK to bring in the unplanned additional backport (as a
dependency).

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Loic Dachary notifications@github.com
wrote:

Oh, if it's just a matter of ordering the commits, it's good.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#5529 (comment).

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 14, 2015

@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.

@smithfarm smithfarm changed the title [DNM] FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported Aug 15, 2015
ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2015
…pported

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 20, 2015

@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.

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2015
…pported

Reviewed-by: Loic Dachary <ldachary@redhat.com>
@tchaikov
Copy link
Contributor

@dachary and @smithfarm Reviewed-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2015
FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported

Reviewed-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
@ghost ghost merged commit 07e90f5 into ceph:firefly Oct 22, 2015
@smithfarm smithfarm deleted the wip-12586-firefly branch October 22, 2015 16:36
@ghost ghost changed the title FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported common: FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported Oct 24, 2015
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants