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

jewel: cephfs: osdc/Filer: truncate large file party by party #15442

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 23, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@Vicente-Cheng
Contributor

Vicente-Cheng commented Jun 3, 2017

@smithfarm smithfarm added this to the jewel milestone Jun 3, 2017

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Jun 19, 2017

Contributor

Jenkins re-test this please

Contributor

smithfarm commented Jun 19, 2017

Jenkins re-test this please

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Jul 31, 2017

Contributor

@Vicente-Cheng Hi, could you please compare your version of this backport with @ukernel 's version at https://github.com/ukernel/ceph/tree/wip-20026-jewel (they should be exactly the same)

Contributor

smithfarm commented Jul 31, 2017

@Vicente-Cheng Hi, could you please compare your version of this backport with @ukernel 's version at https://github.com/ukernel/ceph/tree/wip-20026-jewel (they should be exactly the same)

@smithfarm smithfarm added cephfs and removed core labels Jul 31, 2017

@smithfarm smithfarm changed the title from jewel: osdc/Filer: truncate large file party by party to jewel: cephfs: osdc/Filer: truncate large file party by party Jul 31, 2017

@ukernel

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ukernel

ukernel Aug 1, 2017

Member

@Vicente-Cheng, the onack handling in your code does not seem correct. no one uses the onack callback, please just remove it.

Member

ukernel commented Aug 1, 2017

@Vicente-Cheng, the onack handling in your code does not seem correct. no one uses the onack callback, please just remove it.

@Vicente-Cheng

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicente-Cheng

Vicente-Cheng Aug 1, 2017

Contributor

@ukernel, OK, I will remove it and check onack callback again (I though it still use, so I remain it...)

@smithfarm, Sure, I will check it with https://github.com/ukernel/ceph/tree/wip-20026-jewel this branch again and update this pr

thanks for your reminder

Contributor

Vicente-Cheng commented Aug 1, 2017

@ukernel, OK, I will remove it and check onack callback again (I though it still use, so I remain it...)

@smithfarm, Sure, I will check it with https://github.com/ukernel/ceph/tree/wip-20026-jewel this branch again and update this pr

thanks for your reminder

osdc/Filer: truncate large file party by party
Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19755
Signed-off-by: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 5fab215)

Conflicts:
	src/osdc/Filer.h
	src/osdc/Filer.cc
	    - add parameter to fit _modify (need onack parameter)
	src/mds/MDCache.cc
	    - make truncate() consistency
@Vicente-Cheng

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Vicente-Cheng

Vicente-Cheng Aug 1, 2017

Contributor

@smithfarm,
Hi Nathan, I rebase and update this pr.
Compare with the https://github.com/ukernel/ceph/tree/wip-20026-jewel, I change something that @ukernel suggest remove unuse onack, I think that looks like the same with his branch...

maybe you could review it again : )
thanks!!

Contributor

Vicente-Cheng commented Aug 1, 2017

@smithfarm,
Hi Nathan, I rebase and update this pr.
Compare with the https://github.com/ukernel/ceph/tree/wip-20026-jewel, I change something that @ukernel suggest remove unuse onack, I think that looks like the same with his branch...

maybe you could review it again : )
thanks!!

@smithfarm smithfarm requested a review from ukernel Aug 1, 2017

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Aug 1, 2017

Contributor

@Vicente-Cheng Thanks. I will include this in the next jewel integration branch.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Aug 1, 2017

@Vicente-Cheng Thanks. I will include this in the next jewel integration branch.

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@smithfarm

smithfarm Aug 22, 2017

Contributor

@batrick @ukernel This passed an fs suite at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20613#note-7 with two occurrences of the following transient failure: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16881

Please review.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Aug 22, 2017

@batrick @ukernel This passed an fs suite at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20613#note-7 with two occurrences of the following transient failure: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16881

Please review.

@smithfarm smithfarm requested a review from batrick Aug 22, 2017

@batrick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@batrick

batrick Aug 22, 2017

Member

That failure is known to be racy/transient. I'm okay with merging this after @ukernel approves.

Member

batrick commented Aug 22, 2017

That failure is known to be racy/transient. I'm okay with merging this after @ukernel approves.

@smithfarm smithfarm merged commit 03cf10a into ceph:jewel Aug 23, 2017

3 checks passed

Signed-off-by all commits in this PR are signed
Details
Unmodified Submodules submodules for project are unmodified
Details
make check make check succeeded
Details

@Vicente-Cheng Vicente-Cheng deleted the Vicente-Cheng:wip-20025-jewel branch Aug 23, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment