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

doc: update doc for with new pool settings #5951

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Oct 1, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@guangyy
Copy link
Member

guangyy commented Sep 16, 2015

The code change of both parameters have been merged, update the doc accordingly.

Signed-off-by: Guang Yang yguang@yahoo-inc.com

@guangyy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

guangyy commented Sep 18, 2015

@tchaikov , you are right, let me update the section.

@guangyy guangyy force-pushed the guangyy:doc-pool branch from c0f1fef to 69c0068 Sep 18, 2015

@guangyy guangyy force-pushed the guangyy:doc-pool branch from 69c0068 to 7073bbb Sep 22, 2015

@guangyy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

guangyy commented Sep 22, 2015

Rebased to resolve the conflicts. Hi @tchaikov , could you please help to review? Thanks!

@guangyy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

guangyy commented Sep 24, 2015

@tchaikov , yeah I agree, will update accordingly. Thanks.

@guangyy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

guangyy commented Sep 28, 2015

@tchaikov , had another looks, it seems for others settings (including cache_min_evict_age), the description of the GET section is just a copy-paste of SET section. Did I miss anything?

@guangyy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

guangyy commented Sep 29, 2015

@tchaikov , right.. my bad (I realized that yesterday as well when I was trying to rebase).

In order to keep things consistent, I may add another commit to make all description at GET section to point to SET section, not just fast_read?

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

ghost commented Sep 29, 2015

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

after a rebase

@tchaikov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

tchaikov commented Sep 30, 2015

In order to keep things consistent, I may add another commit to make all description at GET section to point to SET section, not just fast_read?

that sounds good =)

@guangyy guangyy force-pushed the guangyy:doc-pool branch 5 times, most recently from bd4b11e to d31ba28 Sep 30, 2015

Guang Yang and others added some commits Sep 16, 2015

Guang Yang Guang Yang
doc: update doc for with new pool settings
Signed-off-by: Guang Yang yguang@yahoo-inc.com
Guang Yang
cleanup: make the pool setting GET decription point to SET description
Signed-off-by: Guang Yang yguang@yahoo-inc.com

@guangyy guangyy force-pushed the guangyy:doc-pool branch from d31ba28 to 6b1e4a6 Sep 30, 2015

@guangyy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

guangyy commented Sep 30, 2015

@tchaikov , updated with in-doc reference for all pool setting stuff, please help check. Thanks!

@ghost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

ghost commented Sep 30, 2015

@guangyy please ignore the false negative from the bot, it has been fixed yesterday and should no longer bother you :-) http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13176

@guangyy

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

guangyy commented Sep 30, 2015

@dachary , thanks for looking into it.

tchaikov added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 1, 2015

Merge pull request #5951 from guangyy/doc-pool
doc: update doc for with new pool settings

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

@tchaikov tchaikov merged commit 7db35f2 into ceph:master Oct 1, 2015

steveftaylor pushed a commit to steveftaylor/ceph that referenced this pull request May 4, 2016

Samuel Just
sharedptr_registry.hpp: removed ptrs need to not blast contents
See the included unit test update.  Consider:
1) x = lookup_or_create(1, 1)
2) remove(1)
3) y = lookup_or_create(1, 2)
4) x.reset()
5) z = lookup(1)

The bug is that z will be null since x.reset() caused the
cleanup callback to remove y's key value from contents.

To fix this, contents also records the pointer value for
the weak_ptr.  The removal callback only removes the
key from contents if it matches the ptr in contents.

This should work since the pointer passed to the removal
callback must be unique up to that point since it has
not yet been deleted.

This allowed a pg removal -> pg recreation -> pg removal
sequence to cause the second pg removal entry to be
erroneously cleared by the first pg removal's destructor
as it finally made its way through the removal queue.

Fixes: ceph#5951
Signed-off-by: Samuel Just <sam.just@inktank.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Farnum <greg@inktank.com>
(cherry picked from commit 28e4271)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.