I think I agree that the failed notify api is superfluous. Also, would that not imply that the handle_error callback had already fired with an ETIMEDOUT? -Sam On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Sage Weil wrote: >> My pile of watch/notify changes are ready for review: >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/2924 > > Okay, I did another round of cleanup (including moving most of the code > into Objecter) and it's now way cleaner and passing all the basic tests > (hasn't gone through full yet). > > I still have a big outstanding question: > > Does the failed notify API make sense? I'm leaning no, but want another > opinion before I go rip it back out. To summarize: it notifies a watcher > if it was slow to respond to an earlier notify and caused the notifier to > time out. Counterargument: if the notifier wants to tell everyone they > saw a timeout, they could send another notify; at least then they would > know if the second piece of information was delivered (quickly). I don't > think that librbd or rgw will make use of it. > > The last bit of work remaining is to migrate RGW over to the new API and > make it use watch_check(). Will work with Yehuda on that, but in the > meantime, this is ready for review! > > sage > -- > 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
