On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? Do you mean backport this PR(https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/8290)? > > 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
