On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, xxhdx1985126 wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
>
> I'm trying to read the source code of ceph, and I found that some code seems strange.
> In ReplicatedBackend::sub_op_modify_reply, there is the following code:
> if (r->ack_type & CEPH_OSD_FLAG_ONDISK) {
> assert(ip_op.waiting_for_commit.count(from));
> ip_op.waiting_for_commit.erase(from);
> if (ip_op.op) {
> ostringstream ss;
> ss << "sub_op_commit_rec_from_osd." << from.osd;
> ip_op.op->mark_event(ss.str());
> }
> } else {
> assert(ip_op.waiting_for_applied.count(from));
> if (ip_op.op) {
> ostringstream ss;
> ss << "sub_op_applied_rec_from_osd." << from.osd;
> ip_op.op->mark_event(ss.str());
> }
> }
> ip_op.waiting_for_applied.erase(from);
> It seems that the statement "ip_op.waiting_for_applied.erase(from)" should be in the "else" clause, otherwise items in waiting_for_applied could be errorly erased when ack_type is CEPH_OSD_FLAG_ONDISK.
>
> Why put it outside the "else" clause?
The commit/ondisk message implies applied.
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
