Bug 1437313 - BZ for some bugs found while going through synctask code
Summary: BZ for some bugs found while going through synctask code
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: GlusterFS
Classification: Community
Component: core
Version: 3.8
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ravishankar N
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1434274
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-03-30 03:54 UTC by Ravishankar N
Modified: 2023-09-14 03:55 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of: 1434274
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-05-02 09:56:08 UTC
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.