On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/24/2014 03:59 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote: >> CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE is not an extent op, stop treating it as such. This >> sneaked in with discard patches - it's one of the three osd ops (the >> other two are CEPH_OSD_OP_TRUNCATE and CEPH_OSD_OP_ZERO) that discard >> is implemented with. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Is the CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE used in ceph_zero_partial_object() > an extent op? If it is not, you should get rid of the BUG_ON() > in osd_req_op_extent_init() that allows CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE. > > And if that's the case it looks like that function or > ceph_osdc_new_request() handle CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE > properly--so it's not treated as an extent op. > > And: osd_req_encode_op() encodes a CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE > as an extent op as well. > > If it *can* be an extent op (but just not as used by RBD) > then it warrants a comment here that explains why it is > not being initialized as an extent op. Hi Alex, Clearly I didn't provide enough background. OSDs don't look at extent part of the op union when processing CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE, so it's not an extent op. Zheng added support for CEPH_OSD_OP_CREATE and in the same commit changed osd_req_op_extent_init(), ceph_osdc_new_request() and osd_req_encode_op() to not allow/encode CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE, see [1]. This patch was rebased into testing before [1] in order to not break git bisect as Zheng didn't care of rbd, which only recently started issuing CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE for whole-object discards. [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph-client/commit/6d23aa137d1861fc48f86ba6532458fcebcdd038 Thanks, Ilya -- 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
