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

nautilus: rgw_file: advance_mtime() should consider namespace expiration #29410

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Aug 18, 2019

Conversation

rgw_file: advance_mtime() should consider namespace expiration
Predictably, slow NFS operations like READDIR will overlap mtime
advance, so don't advance faster than the nfs namespace
expiration timer.

Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/40415

Signed-off-by: Matt Benjamin <mbenjamin@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit fc14eeb)

@tchaikov tchaikov added this to the nautilus milestone Jul 31, 2019

@smithfarm smithfarm requested review from mattbenjamin and cbodley Aug 15, 2019

@mattbenjamin
Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

this looks good--note that we should immediately backport the locking change that followed this one, as the lock guard here introduced a deadlock for write operations

@cbodley
Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

@mattbenjamin can you please link to the pr/tracker issue so it can be included here?

@mattbenjamin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 15, 2019

@yuriw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 15, 2019

@yuriw

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 18, 2019

@cbodley can this be merged?Reviewed-by: Casey Bodley cbodley@redhat.com

@yuriw yuriw merged commit 0198617 into ceph:nautilus Aug 18, 2019

4 checks passed

Docs: build check OK - docs built
Details
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
@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 21, 2019

@cbodley @theanalyst @yuriw @mattbenjamin Do I understand correctly that:

If I am right about the above, what does that mean for 14.2.3?

@cbodley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 21, 2019

@smithfarm that's correct, my intent was to block merging of this pr. i would very much like to include #29801 in 14.2.3

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.