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
Omap small bugs #6046
Omap small bugs #6046
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
When set omapheader/omapvals, it alreade set FLAG_OMAP. So for remove don't set again. Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
The code already check object whether exist. So it don't need call touch. Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
…deep-scrub. Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
For be_deep_scrub, we already got the hash info attr. So if don't found in cache, directly decode rather than call stat & getattr. Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
Now erasure pool don't support omap. So it dont need set those. Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
… omap. Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <jianpeng.ma@intel.com>
@athanatos . Have you time to review those? thanks |
@@ -409,7 +409,8 @@ enum scrub_error_type PGBackend::be_compare_scrub_objects( | |||
if (auth.size != candidate.size) { | |||
if (error != CLEAN) | |||
errorstream << ", "; | |||
error = SHALLOW_ERROR; | |||
if (error != DEEP_ERROR) | |||
error = SHALLOW_ERROR; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is a comment above that says that the shallow error here takes precedence because this can be seen by both kinds of scrubs. This is a bit odd, but I'd say remove this entire commit unless you are seeing a particular problem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm... making shallow take precedence doesn't make sense to me. Anybody remember why it says that? @athanatos ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@liewegas In addition to your change at line 412 we should not set read_error in be_scan_list() on stat() errors and set the stat size to something invalid instead. Also, remove the comments at line 374 and at line 407.
This way a regular scrub will never get a DEEP_ERROR from this function, but a deep-scrub could possibly see a SHALLOW_ERROR if only stat() fails. This keeps the error counts from getting messed up.
@tchaikov . Have you time to review this? Thanks! |
This needs rebase. And a run through the qa suite. (Ping us in #sepia if you need help using teuthology-openstack!) |
I've got a rebase and includes addition of stat_error as pull request #6669 |
reviewed. |
needs rebase? |
nm, see @dzafman rebase |
No description provided.