On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Sage Weil wrote: > Ah, crap. > > Okay, I think we should take the existing TMAPRM op and re-add the ENOENT > check, and then change the mds to use a new TMAPRMSLOPPY op that doesn't > error out. Pushed wip-tmap with a fix. It adds the tmap op code. Conveniently, the old tmap implementation interpreted op code it didn't understand in exactly the right way (as a sloppy removal). sage > > sage > > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Dan Mick wrote: > > > tmap_rm() no longer fails on nonexistent keys > > (29fae494d0b1459c8bb934d42446e0ada7355402) > > > > causing rbd_remove of nonexistent image to succeed without error > > (because, in the case that there's no header object, rbd_remove > > keeps trying to clean up other bits like rbd_directory; in so doing, it relies > > on tmap_rm() to fail removing the key from rbd_directory, or else it assumes > > that this was an old-style image that we've just removed the last trace of and > > returns success) > > > > This breaks test_rbd.test_remove_dne in test/pybind/test_rbd.py > > > > > > We could change librbd obviously. Did you scan for other users, > > though?...maybe there are more lurking > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
