From the proposed patch: Several features - e.g. encryption, erasure codes, or NSR - involve multiple cooperating translators which sometimes need a "private" means of communication amongst themselves. Historically we've used virtual or synthetic xattrs, but that's not very elegant and clutters up the getxattr/setxattr path which must also handle real xattr requests. This new fop should address that.
REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/8812 (every/where: add GF_FOP_IPC for inter-translator communication) posted (#3) for review on master by Jeff Darcy (jdarcy)
REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/8812 (every/where: add GF_FOP_IPC for inter-translator communication) posted (#4) for review on master by Venky Shankar (vshankar)
REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/8812 (every/where: add GF_FOP_IPC for inter-translator communication) posted (#5) for review on master by Venky Shankar (vshankar)
REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/8812 (every/where: add GF_FOP_IPC for inter-translator communication) posted (#6) for review on master by Jeff Darcy (jdarcy)
REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/8812 (every/where: add GF_FOP_IPC for inter-translator communication) posted (#7) for review on master by Jeff Darcy (jdarcy)
COMMIT: http://review.gluster.org/8812 committed in master by Vijay Bellur (vbellur) ------ commit 0d2bed70faed3c63f25ed9269dc55562973ef9b7 Author: Jeff Darcy <jdarcy> Date: Tue Mar 10 20:14:47 2015 -0400 every/where: add GF_FOP_IPC for inter-translator communication Several features - e.g. encryption, erasure codes, or NSR - involve multiple cooperating translators which sometimes need a "private" means of communication amongst themselves. Historically we've used virtual or synthetic xattrs, but that's not very elegant and clutters up the getxattr/setxattr path which must also handle real xattr requests. This new fop should address that. The only argument is an int32_t "op" which should be recognized by the target translator. It is recommended that translators using these feature follow some convention regarding the ops that they define, to avoid conflicts. Using a hash of the target translator's type string as a base for a series of ops would probably be a good start. Any other information can be passed in both directions using xdata. The default behavior for this fop, as with any other, is to pass through to FIRST_CHILD. That makes use of this fop "transparent" to other translators that were written before it existed, but it also means that it only really works with pass-through translators. If a routing translator (such as DHT) or a fan-out translator (such as AFR) is involved, the IPC might not reach its intended destination unless those translators are modified to forward IPC fops along all paths. If an IPC gets all the way to storage/posix it is considered an error, much like an uncaught exception. We don't actually *do* anything in that case, but we do log it send back an EOPNOTSUPP error. This makes the "unrecognized opcode" condition distinguishable from the "no IPC support" condition (which would yield an RPC error instead) so clients can probe for the presence of a handler for their own favorite opcode and either use that or use old-school xattrs depending on the result. BUG: 1158628 Signed-off-by: Venky Shankar <vshankar> Signed-off-by: Jeff Darcy <jdarcy> Change-Id: I84af1b17babe5b30ec03ecf027ae37d09b873968 Reviewed-on: http://review.gluster.org/8812 Reviewed-by: Vijay Bellur <vbellur>
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-3.7.0, please open a new bug report. glusterfs-3.7.0 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://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.gluster.devel/10939 [2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.gluster.user