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

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@smithfarm
Contributor

smithfarm commented Aug 10, 2015

@smithfarm smithfarm self-assigned this Aug 10, 2015

@smithfarm smithfarm added this to the firefly milestone Aug 10, 2015

@smithfarm smithfarm changed the title from FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported to [DNM] FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported Aug 10, 2015

majianpeng and others added some commits Jan 7, 2015

common: Directly return the result of syncfs().
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)
common: Don't call ioctl(BTRFS_IOC_SYNC) in sync_filesystem.
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)
mon, os: check the result of sync_filesystem.
Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
(cherry picked from commit 27cb78b)
sync_filesystem.h: fix unreachable code
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)
common/syncfs: fall back to sync(2) if syncfs(2) not available
Fixes: #12512
Signed-off-by: Kefu Chai <kchai@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 08210d6)
@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Aug 14, 2015

@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

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Aug 14, 2015

. . . and 9921836 is a no-brainer.

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

ghost commented Aug 14, 2015

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

@smithfarm

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

smithfarm commented Aug 14, 2015

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

This comment has been minimized.

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 from [DNM] FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported to FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported Aug 15, 2015

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 20, 2015

Merge pull request #5529: FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not su…
…pported

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

This comment has been minimized.

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

Merge pull request #5529: FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not su…
…pported

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

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

tchaikov commented Oct 22, 2015

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

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 22, 2015

Loic Dachary
Merge pull request #5529 from SUSE/wip-12586-firefly
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 SUSE:wip-12586-firefly branch Oct 22, 2015

@ghost ghost changed the title from FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported to common: FileStore calls syncfs(2) even it is not supported Oct 24, 2015

This issue was closed.

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