[Gluster-devel] Performance Translators' Stability and Usefulness

Anand Avati avati at gluster.com
Tue Jul 7 00:09:47 UTC 2009

>   I've also gone one better than just advice - I've given up significant
> portions of my limited spare time to audit and patch a not-insignificant
> portion of the GlusterFS code, in order to deal with the stability issues I
> and others were encountering. My patches were ignored, on the grounds that it
> contained otherwise unobtrusive comments which were quite necessary to the
> audit.

Geoff, we really appreciate your efforts, both on the fronts of your
patch submissions and for voicing your opinions freely. We also
acknowledge the positive intentions behind this thread. As far as your
patch submissions are concerned, there is probably a misunderstanding.
Your patches were not ignored. We do value your efforts. The patches
which you submitted, even at the time of your submission were not
applicable to the codebase.

Patch 1 (in glusterfsd.c) -- this file was reworked and almost
rewritten from scratch to work as both client and server.

Patch 2 (glusterfs-fuse/src/glusterfs.c) -- this module was
reimplemented as a new translator (since a separate client was no more

Patch 3 (protocol.c) -- with the introduction of non blocking IO and
binary protocol, nothing of this file remained.

What I am hoping to convey is that, the reason your patches did not
make it to the repository was because it needed significant reworking
to even apply. I did indeed comment about code comments of the style
/* FlawFinder: */ but then, that definitely was _not_ the reason they
weren't included. Please understand that nothing was ignored

This being said, I can totally understand the efforts which you have
been putting to maintain patchsets by yourself and keeping them up to
date with the repository. I request you to resubmit them (with git
format-patch) against the HEAD of the repository.


More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list