Hi Sage, all, I run "make check" and got two FAIL, one is unittest_chain_xattr, which I once came across, I remeber haomai said this was because the selinux, and the other fail is test/test_pidfile.sh, I checkout [1] and run "make && make check", got the same result, so I think that's not because my applied patch, maybe the master branch got the same problem? Hope somebody could share some tips. [1] https://github.com/liewegas/ceph/commit/35f1077c3afd016d54707f9fe4de8c312eb47c67 Cheers, Zhao On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Sage, > > Check this: > https://github.com/zhjwpku/ceph/commit/2dddc32eb18c2a065963ae33674cb2c8a9e64dc5 > > The original patch doesn't compile, I add dump and > generate_test_instances, now it passed > the 'make', I am running the 'make check'. > > Not sure did I do it right, please give some feedback. > > Thanks! > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I am working on it, the complie is quite slow, I will ping you tomorrow. >> >> BR, >> Zhao >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi Junwang, >>> >>> On Sun, 8 May 2016, Junwang Zhao wrote: >>>> This weekend, I read the wip-addr-features patches in your repo and >>>> the related wip-addr patches in ceph repo, I understand that my task >>>> is to make the required-features-patch work by breaking done the 'wip' >>>> into small patches to make the required-features-patch finally work. >>>> I got one question, when I applied a small individual patch, how can I >>>> know it works, will 'make' tell(from the errors)? >>> >>> 'make' is the first barrier. Making sure 'make check' passes would be >>> the next step. You might want to make sure this passes on your machine >>> before making any changes, as it can be somewhat sensitive to the >>> environment. >>> >>> Breaking up the current changes into a patch series is a start. I would >>> start with that and check in (ping us in #ceph-devel). There are also >>> still a lot of remaining places where we don't have features yet and the >>> code still doesn't compile. Usually it's a matter of adding arguments to >>> a chain of calling functions. If you're not sure how to proceed check >>> with us on IRC. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> sage >>> >>>> >>>> Cheers! >>>> Zhao >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> > Hi Zhao, >>>> > >>>> > We identified wip-addr as a desireable first step to fixing up the >>>> > messenger protocol. It has a bunch of other nice benefits as well, like >>>> > being able to support both IPv4 and IPv6 in the same cluster. >>>> > >>>> > I started rebasing the branch this morning ran into a bunch of non-trivial >>>> > questions about how we should structure the entity_addr_t to support both >>>> > new address types (ipv4, ipv6, xio, etc.) *and* the a new on-wire >>>> > protocol. But this is actually step 2... >>>> > >>>> > Step 1 is to just get the feature bits plumbed down to every bit of code >>>> > that encodes an entity_addr_t to send over the wire so that we will >>>> > know whether to encode using the new or legacy format. To do that, I >>>> > pushed a simplified branch, wip-addr-features, to >>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/liewegas/ceph/commits/wip-addr-features >>>> > >>>> > The are some prelim encoding patches, then a patch that makes >>>> > entity_addr_t and entity_inst_t *optionally* accept feature bits. Let's >>>> > call it optional-features-patch. This compiles cleanly, and allows either >>>> > an existing featureless encode >>>> > >>>> > entity_addr_t foo; >>>> > ::encode(foo, bl); // old way we need to eliminate >>>> > >>>> > or a featured encode >>>> > >>>> > entity_addr_t foo; >>>> > ::encode(foo, bl, features); // what we want >>>> > >>>> > compile. >>>> > >>>> > Then there's a patch that makes the old way not compile. Let's call it >>>> > required-features-patch. This will make the compiler spit out a million >>>> > errors for all the call sites that still need to be fixed. >>>> > >>>> > Finally, there is a 'wip' commit that fixes some but not all call sites. >>>> > This commit needs to be broken down into simple, individual changes that >>>> > can be tested and reviewed separately. >>>> > >>>> > The idea is to work with the require-features-patch applied to identify >>>> > remaining call sites that need features to encode entity_addr_t. Create >>>> > small, contained patches that fix individual modules, call sites, or add >>>> > supporting infrastructure (like the changes that expose features to OSD >>>> > cls ops in objclass/*). >>>> > >>>> > Once there are several of those, remove the require-features-patch, and >>>> > make sure the changes are safe and clean and everything still works >>>> > properly. We can merge these as we go to make incremental progress. >>>> > >>>> > Finally, once *everything* is fixed to pass features to addr encode sites, >>>> > the last commit will be the require-features-patch, and we can get it all >>>> > in master. >>>> > >>>> > That will lay the foundation so that we can change the entity_addr_t >>>> > encoding to support the new protocols and encoding, the entity_addrvec_t >>>> > type, and so on. >>>> > >>>> > (The plan is to replace most instnaces of entity_addr_t with >>>> > entity_addrvec_t--a list of addresses instead of a single one. And make >>>> > entity_addrvec_t encoded with old features spit out the legacy addr with >>>> > the legacy entity_addr_t encoding so that old clients can still function.) >>>> > >>>> > We're all in #ceph-devel on irc.oftc.net--feel free to ask questions there >>>> > or on this email thread. Or we can do another video conf session to go >>>> > through it. >>>> > >>>> > Thanks! >>>> > 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
