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

rgw: init some manifest fields when handling explicit objs #5732

Merged
1 commit merged into from Sep 2, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@yehudasa
Member

yehudasa commented Aug 31, 2015

rgw: init some manifest fields when handling explicit objs
Fixes: #11455
When dealing with old manifest that has explicit objs, we also
need to set the head size and head object correctly so that
code that relies on this info doesn't break.

Signed-off-by: Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit d7bf8cb)

@yehudasa yehudasa added this to the hammer milestone Aug 31, 2015

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 31, 2015

Merge pull request #5732: rgw: init some manifest fields when handlin…
…g explicit objs

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

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 1, 2015

Merge pull request #5732: rgw: init some manifest fields when handlin…
…g explicit objs

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

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2015

Merge pull request #5732: rgw: init some manifest fields when handlin…
…g explicit objs

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

@ghost ghost self-assigned this Sep 2, 2015

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

ghost commented Sep 2, 2015

ghost pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 2, 2015

Loic Dachary
Merge pull request #5732 from ceph/wip-11455-hammer
rgw: init some manifest fields when handling explicit objs

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

@ghost ghost merged commit 011e4c5 into hammer Sep 2, 2015

@liewegas liewegas deleted the wip-11455-hammer branch Nov 23, 2016

This issue was closed.

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