Hi Avra,
Thanks for the reply,
But the problem I see here is the previous patch set sent would'nt compile individually. So, I merged the changes into a single patch , which i'd posted today. Is it ok to drop all the previous posted patches and consider from the new one? Please suggest.
Sriram
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016, at 12:45 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
Hi Sriram,I have already provided comments on the new patch. It seems this new patch while addressing merge cloflicts, has undone some previous patches. I suggest you send this patch on top of the previous patchset(http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15554/1) instead of creating a new one. This will allow you to view the diff between the new version and the previous version, and will give u an idea if the diff is something that you added in the patch or got added as part of merge conflict.Regards,AvraOn 12/15/2016 12:09 PM, sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hi Avra,I've update the patch according to the comments below. And created a single patch which does the initial modularization. Fixed the tab->space issue as well. I've raised a new review request for the same bug ID here:Added, Rajesh and You as the reviewers, let me know if I need to do anything else.Could you have a look and let me know?(Sorry for the delay in creating this)SriramOn Thu, Oct 13, 2016, at 12:15 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:Hi Sriram,The point I was trying to make is, that we want that each patch should compile by itself, and pass regression. So for that to happen, we need to consolidate these patches(the first three) into one patch, and have the necessary make file changes into that patch too.That will give us one single patch, that contains the changes of having the current code moved into separate files, and it should get compiled on it's own, and should pass regression. Also, we use spaces, and not tabs in the code. So we will need to get those changed too. Thanks.Regards,AvraOn 10/12/2016 10:46 PM, sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hi Avra,Could you let me know on the below request?SriramHi Avra,I checked the comment, the series of patches, (There are nine patches) for which I've posted for a review below. They've all the necessary makefiles to compile.Would you want me to consolidate all'em and post them as a single patch? (I thought that would be a little confusing, since it'd changes with different intentions).SriramOn Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 03:54 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:Hi Sriram,I posted a comment into the first patch. It doesn't compile by itself. We need to update the respective makefiles to be able to compile it. Then we can introduce the tabular structure in the same patch to have the framework set for the zfs snapshots. Thanks.Regards,AvraOn 09/30/2016 10:24 AM, sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hi Avra,Could you have a look into the below request?SriramHi Avra,Have submitted the patches for Modularizing snapshot,This is the patch set:http://review.gluster.org/15554 This patch follows the discussion from the gluster-devel mail chain of, ...http://review.gluster.org/15555 Referring to bugID:1377437, Modularizing snapshot for plugin based modules.http://review.gluster.org/15556 - This is third patch in the series for the bug=1377437http://review.gluster.org/15557 [BugId:1377437][Patch4]: Refering to the bug ID,http://review.gluster.org/15558 [BugId:1377437][Patch5]: Refering to the bug ID,http://review.gluster.org/15559 [BugId:1377437][Patch6]: Refering to the bug ID,http://review.gluster.org/15560 [BugId:1377437][Patch7]: Refering to the bug ID. * This patch has some minor ...http://review.gluster.org/15561 [BugId:1377437][Patch8]: Refering to the bug ID, this commit has minor fixes ...http://review.gluster.org/15562 [BugId:1377437][Patch9]: Refering to the bug ID, - Minor header file ...Primarily, focused on moving lvm based implementation into plugins. Have spread the commits across nine patches, some of them are minors, except a couple of ones which does the real work. Others are minors. Followed this method since, it would be easy for a review (accept/reject). Let me know if there is something off the methods followed with gluster devel. ThanksSriramOn Mon, Sep 19, 2016, at 10:58 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:Hi Sriram,I have created a bug for this (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377437). The plan is that for the first patch as mentioned below, let's not meddle with the zfs code at all. What we are looking at is segregating the lvm based code as is today, from the management infrastructure (which is addressed in your patch), and creating a table based pluggable infra(refer to gd_svc_cli_actors[] in xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/glusterd-handler.c and other similar tables in gluster code base to get a understanding of what I am conveying), which can be used to call this code and still achieve the same results as we do today.Once this code is merged, we can use the same infra to start pushing in the zfs code (rest of your current patch). Please let me know if you have further queries regarding this. Thanks.Regards,AvraHi Avra,Do you have a bug id for this changes? Or may I raise a new one?SriramThanks Avra,I'll send this patch to gluster master in a while.SriramOn Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 03:08 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:Hi Sriram,Sorry for the delay in response. I started going through the commits in the github repo. I finished going through the first commit, where you create a plugin structure and move code. Following is the commit link:FIrst of all, the overall approach of using plugins, and maintaining plugins that is used in the patch is in sync with what we had discussed. There are some gaps though, like in the zfs functions the snap brick is mounted without updating labels, and in restore you perform a zfs rollback, which significantly changes the behavior between how a lvm based snapshot and a zfs based snapshot.But before we get into these details, I would request you to kindly send this particular patch to the gluster master branch, as that is how we formally review patches, and I would say this particular patch in itself is ready for a formal review. Once we straighten out the quirks in this patch, we can significantly start moving the other dependent patches to master and reviewing them. Thanks.Regards,AvraP.S : Adding gluster-develHi Avra,You'd time to look into the below request?SriramHi Avra,Thank you. Please, let me know your feedback. It would be helpful on continuing from then.SriramOn Thu, Sep 8, 2016, at 01:18 PM, Avra Sengupta wrote:Hi Sriram,Rajesh is on a vacation, and will be available towards the end of next week. He will be sharing his feedback once he is back. Meanwhile I will have a look at the patch and share my feedback with you. But it will take me some time to go through it. Thanks.Regards,AvraHello Rajesh,Sorry to bother. Could you have a look at the below request?SriramOn Tue, Sep 6, 2016, at 11:27 AM, sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:Hello Rajesh,Sorry for the delayed mail, was on leave. Could you let me know the feedback?SriramOn Fri, Sep 2, 2016, at 10:08 AM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:+ AvraHi Srirram,Sorry, I was on leave therefore could not reply.Added Avra who is also working on the snapshot component for review.Will take a look at your changes today.Thanks & Regards,RajeshOn Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:22 PM, <sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hello Rajesh,Could you've a look at the below request?SriramHi Rajesh,Continuing from the discussion we've had below and suggestions made by you, had created a plugin like structure (A generic plugin model) and added snapshot to be the first plugin implementation. Could you've a look if the approach is fine? I've not raised a official review request yet. Could you give an initial review of the model?Things done,- Created a new folder for glusterd plugins and added snapshot as a plugin. Like this,$ROOT/xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins + | + __ snapshot/src Moved LVM related snapshot implementation toxlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/lvm-snapshot.c - Mostly isolated, glusterd code from snapshot implementation by using logging, error codes and messages from glusterd and libglusterfs.- This way, i though we could get complete isolation of snapshot plugin implementation which avoids most of compiler and linking dependency issues.- Created a library of the above like libgsnapshot.so and linking it with glusterd.so to get this working.- The complete isolation also makes us to avoid reverse dependency like some api's inside plugin/snapshot being dependent on glusterd.soTODO's :- Need to create glusterd_snapshot_ops structure which would be used to register snapshot related API's with glusterd.so.- Add command line snapshot plugin option, so that it picks up on compilation.- If any missed implementation for plugin.- Cleanup and get a review ready branch.Let me know if this looks ok? Or need to any more into the list.SriramOn Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 02:43 PM, Rajesh Joseph wrote:On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Vijay Bellur <vbellur@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 07/19/2016 11:01 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Rajesh Joseph <rjoseph@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rjoseph@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM, <sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:sriram@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:__
Hi Rajesh,
I'd thought about moving the zfs specific implementation to
something like
xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/plugins/zfs-specifs-stuffs for the
inital go. Could you let me know if this works or in sync with
what you'd thought about?
Sriram
Hi Sriram,
Sorry, I was not able to send much time on this. I would prefer you
move the code to
xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/src/zfs-specifs-stuffs
How about having it under
xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/zfs-specifs- stuffs such that
in future if we have to write plugins for other features they can be
segregated?It would be nicer to avoid "specific-stuff" or similar from the naming. We can probably leave it at xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/zfs. The naming would be sufficient to indicate that code is specific to zfs snapshots. I don't think the directory would be named "zfs-specific_stuffs, instead zfs specific source file will come directly under "xlators/mgmt/glusterd/plugins/snapshot/src/". I think I should have been more clear, my bad. -Rajesh_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list_______________________________________________Gluster-devel mailing list_______________________________________________Gluster-devel mailing list_______________________________________________Gluster-devel mailing list
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
