Bug 1397419

Summary:	glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init is re-initializing ctx->locks
Product:	[Community] GlusterFS	Reporter:	rjoseph
Component:	cli	Assignee:	rjoseph
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	mainline	CC:	bugs, ndevos
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	glusterfs-3.10.0	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1400802 1400803 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-03-06 17:35:27 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1400802, 1400803

Description rjoseph 2016-11-22 13:40:43 UTC

Description of problem:

In glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init both glusterfsd and cli is re-initializing ctx->locks which can overwrite previous state.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Worker Ant 2016-11-22 13:59:07 UTC

REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/15904 (cli: glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init should not re-initialize ctx->locks) posted (#1) for review on master by Rajesh Joseph (rjoseph)

Comment 2 Worker Ant 2016-11-22 13:59:10 UTC

REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/15905 (glusterfsd: glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init should not re-initialize ctx->locks) posted (#1) for review on master by Rajesh Joseph (rjoseph)

Comment 3 Worker Ant 2016-11-24 14:29:05 UTC

COMMIT: http://review.gluster.org/15904 committed in master by Atin Mukherjee (amukherj) 
------
commit 8df8a2308fcf5efda638f160428158127930d00f
Author: Rajesh Joseph <rjoseph>
Date:   Tue Nov 22 01:48:26 2016 +0530

    cli: glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init should not re-initialize ctx->locks
    
    glusterfs_ctx_new already initialize ctx->locks therefore the second
    initialization in glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init does not make sense.
    
    Change-Id: I8a44bed13af20e60e8bafb05360e88c0b237056c
    BUG: 1397419
    Signed-off-by: Rajesh Joseph <rjoseph>
    Reviewed-on: http://review.gluster.org/15904
    Smoke: Gluster Build System <jenkins.org>
    NetBSD-regression: NetBSD Build System <jenkins.org>
    CentOS-regression: Gluster Build System <jenkins.org>
    Reviewed-by: Atin Mukherjee <amukherj>

Comment 4 Worker Ant 2016-12-02 06:23:42 UTC

COMMIT: http://review.gluster.org/15905 committed in master by Atin Mukherjee (amukherj) 
------
commit 47e69455d3aede77960fd81a7cf3d6b4a869dbfa
Author: Rajesh Joseph <rjoseph>
Date:   Tue Nov 22 01:51:19 2016 +0530

    glusterfsd: glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init should not re-initialize ctx->locks
    
    glusterfs_ctx_new already initialize ctx->locks therefore the second
    initialization in glusterfs_ctx_defaults_init does not make sense.
    
    Change-Id: I6027cbd311da8e80585e0f0dcd6916e3bc8dd284
    BUG: 1397419
    Signed-off-by: Rajesh Joseph <rjoseph>
    Reviewed-on: http://review.gluster.org/15905
    NetBSD-regression: NetBSD Build System <jenkins.org>
    Reviewed-by: Poornima G <pgurusid>
    CentOS-regression: Gluster Build System <jenkins.org>
    Smoke: Gluster Build System <jenkins.org>
    Reviewed-by: Vijay Bellur <vbellur>
    Reviewed-by: Atin Mukherjee <amukherj>

Comment 5 Shyamsundar 2017-03-06 17:35:27 UTC

This bug is getting closed because a release has been made available that should address the reported issue. In case the problem is still not fixed with glusterfs-3.10.0, please open a new bug report.

glusterfs-3.10.0 has been announced on the Gluster mailinglists [1], packages for several distributions should become available in the near future. Keep an eye on the Gluster Users mailinglist [2] and the update infrastructure for your distribution.

[1] http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2017-February/030119.html
[2] https://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/

Comment 6 Amar Tumballi 2019-05-14 09:38:25 UTC

*** Bug 1397397 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***