Bug 1437313

Summary:	BZ for some bugs found while going through synctask code
Product:	[Community] GlusterFS	Reporter:	Ravishankar N <ravishankar>
Component:	core	Assignee:	Ravishankar N <ravishankar>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.8	CC:	bugs, pkarampu
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	1434274	Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-05-02 09:56:08 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:	1434274
Bug Blocks:

Description Ravishankar N 2017-03-30 03:54:21 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1434274 +++

Bugs listed in the patch description.

Comment 1 Worker Ant 2017-03-30 03:55:46 UTC

REVIEW: https://review.gluster.org/16965 (syncop:  don't wake task in synctask_wake unless really needed) posted (#1) for review on release-3.8 by Ravishankar N (ravishankar)

Comment 2 Niels de Vos 2017-04-07 12:03:28 UTC

There has been an unfinished conversation in the patch review for the backport.

Pranith wrote:
 > > It is probably better to get more testing done for this before
 > > getting merged in stable branch

Ravis reply:
 > The testing I did for the patch on master was to check that the no.
 > of swapcontext syscalls for data healing a single file was indeed
 > less with the patch than without it. What other testing would you
 > recommend specifically?

Waiting for a response from Pranith.

Comment 3 Ravishankar N 2017-04-07 12:20:22 UTC

Pranith said on the 3.10 back port (https://review.gluster.org/#/c/16964/) that he wasn't confident to take this patch in to a stable branch at this point:

<quote>
It is mostly about confidence at this point. It is a change in central part of the library. How confident are we that there won't be any new bugs because of this? I don't think any user is asking for this. If we miss even a single bug, synctask will hang. I think it is better to get it tested for some time. I am saying this because we almost got one new bug in AFR which we fortunately caught in review.
</quote>

Not clearing the need-info in case Pranith wants to add something.

Comment 4 Ravishankar N 2017-05-02 09:56:08 UTC

No consensus in taking this patch in for 3.8 branch.

Comment 5 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 03:55:47 UTC

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days