[Gluster-devel] Need inputs on patch #17985

[Raghavendra G]

Note that we need to consider xlators on brick stack too. I've added
maintainers/peers of xlators on brick stack. Please explicitly ack/nack
whether this patch affects your component.

For reference, following are the xlators loaded in brick stack

storage/posix
features/trash
features/changetimerecorder
features/changelog
features/bitrot-stub
features/access-control
features/locks
features/worm
features/read-only
features/leases
features/upcall
performance/io-threads
features/selinux
features/marker
features/barrier
features/index
features/quota
debug/io-stats
performance/decompounder
protocol/server


For those not following this thread, the question we need to answer is,
"whether the xlator you are associated with works fine if a non-lookup fop
(like open, setattr, stat etc) hits it without a lookup ever being done on
that inode"

regards,
Raghavendra

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <rgowdapp at redhat.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Pranith and Ashish for your inputs.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>
> > To: "Ashish Pandey" <aspandey at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com>, "Xavier Hernandez" <
> xhernandez at datalab.es>, "Gluster Devel"
> > <gluster-devel at gluster.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:55:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: Need inputs on patch #17985
> >
> > Raghavendra,
> >     As Ashish mentioned, there aren't any known problems if upper xlators
> > don't send lookups in EC at the moment.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Ashish Pandey <aspandey at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Raghvendra,
> > >
> > > I have provided my comment on this patch.
> > > I think EC will not have any issue with this approach.
> > > However, I would welcome comments from Xavi and Pranith too for any
> side
> > > effects which I may not be able to foresee.
> > >
> > > Ashish
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > > *From: *"Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com>
> > > *To: *"Ashish Pandey" <aspandey at redhat.com>
> > > *Cc: *"Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>, "Xavier
> Hernandez"
> > > <xhernandez at datalab.es>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel at gluster.org>
> > > *Sent: *Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:29:48 AM
> > > *Subject: *Need inputs on patch #17985
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ashish,
> > >
> > > Following are the blockers for making a decision on whether patch [1]
> can
> > > be merged or not:
> > > * Evaluation of dentry operations (like rename etc) in dht
> > > * Whether EC works fine if a non-lookup fop (like open(dir), stat,
> chmod
> > > etc) hits EC without a single lookup performed on file/inode
> > >
> > > Can you please comment on the patch? I'll take care of dht part.
> > >
> > > [1] https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17985/
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Raghavendra
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pranith
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
> --
> Raghavendra G
>
> <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20170824/6de309a2/attachment.html>