<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/07/2015 12:30 PM, Raghavendra G
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADRNtgRbg1LRvGpwU4KL5WmbhLgBEN07R7GTxPOgZY3rzMfvLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>+ vijay mallikarjuna for quotad has similar concerns<br>
<br>
</div>
+ Raghavendra Bhat for snapd might've similar concerns.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Snapd also uses protocol/server at the top of the graph. So the fix
for protocol/server should be good enough.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Raghavendra Bhat<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADRNtgRbg1LRvGpwU4KL5WmbhLgBEN07R7GTxPOgZY3rzMfvLw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 12:02 PM,
Raghavendra Gowdappa <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:rgowdapp@redhat.com"
target="_blank">rgowdapp@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">+gluster-devel<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:rgowdapp@redhat.com">rgowdapp@redhat.com</a>><br>
> To: "Krishnan Parthasarathi" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:kparthas@redhat.com">kparthas@redhat.com</a>><br>
> Cc: "Nithya Balachandran" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nbalacha@redhat.com">nbalacha@redhat.com</a>>,
"Anoop C S" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:achiraya@redhat.com">achiraya@redhat.com</a>><br>
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 July, 2015 11:32:01 AM<br>
> Subject: on patch #11553<br>
><br>
> KP,<br>
><br>
> Though the crash because of lack of init while fops are
in progress is<br>
> solved, concerns addressed by [1] are still valid.
Basically what we need to<br>
> guarantee is that when is it safe to wind fops through
a particular subvol<br>
> of protocol/server. So, if some xlators are doing
things in events like<br>
> CHILD_UP (like trash), server_setvolume should wait for
CHILD_UP on a<br>
> particular subvol before accepting a client. So, [1] is
necessary but<br>
> following changes need to be made:<br>
><br>
> 1. protocol/server _can_ have multiple subvol as
children. In that case we<br>
> should track whether the exported subvol has received
CHILD_UP and only<br>
> after a successful CHILD_UP on that subvol connections
to that subvol can be<br>
> accepted.<br>
> 2. It is valid (though not a common thing on brick
process) that some subvols<br>
> can be up and some might be down. So, child readiness
should be localised to<br>
> that subvol instead of tracking readiness at
protocol/server level.<br>
><br>
> So, please revive [1] and send it with corrections and
I'll merge it.<br>
><br>
> [1] <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://review.gluster.org/11553" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://review.gluster.org/11553</a><br>
><br>
> regards,<br>
> Raghavendra.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gluster-devel mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.org">Gluster-devel@gluster.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<div class="gmail_signature">Raghavendra G<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>