On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:20 PM Germano Veit Michel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I've finished developing the tools we would like to have to fix snapshot > related issues. > > Piotr did an initial review in one of the patches, but there is still a > lot of reviewing that needs to be done. Could you please review this > series? https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/topic:snapshot-tools > I'm specially concerned about 94366, I'm not sure that is the right way do > to that. > > Note: there are some random CI failures on F28 that we are investigating > in a different mail thread* , so with every rebase 1 to 3 patches fail. > * [VDSM] TestMount.testSymlinkMount failing > > Thanks > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:43 PM Germano Veit Michel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> All passing CI and rebased to latest master. >> Reviews are welcome. >> >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 8:01 AM Germano Veit Michel <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:59 AM Dan Kenigsberg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:49 AM Germano Veit Michel < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:56 PM Dan Kenigsberg <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:24 AM Germano Veit Michel < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I'm working an a tool (vdsm-tool update-volume) to make modifying >>>>>> SD metadata easier and more importantly, safer. This is very useful to >>>>>> recover from failed LSMs or snapshot issues. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The plan is to use the VDSM API (modified by some of these patches) >>>>>> and add a tool (vdsm-tool) that talks to the API and modifies the volumes >>>>>> metadata as required by the user. Currently this is done manually, i.e.: >>>>>> looking at MD_XXX tags, doing dd, sed and then dd back to the storage. >>>>>> Any >>>>>> wrong argument (like a skip in place of a seek) can ruin the entire >>>>>> metadata, so this tool can be quite handy. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The code is not necessarily 100% finished yet, but I've been >>>>>> testing this for some time and it seems ok from a functional point of >>>>>> view. >>>>>> I'm just not sure everything I did (especially inside VDSM, example >>>>>> 94366) >>>>>> is correct. Your comments on what can/should be improved are very welcome >>>>>> at this point. Please see this series and help reviewing it. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/topic:update-volume+(status:open+OR+status:merged) >>>>>> > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/93258/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not a maintainer of vdsm.storage, but I can say that I'm missing >>>>>> a high-level description of the change that you are suggesting, and >>>>>> its motivation. When do you see a need to manually change the metadata >>>>>> of volumes? Shouldn't we fix the bug that causes this need? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ohh, sorry. I thought it was obvious. This is for snapshot related >>>>> issues. These bugs have been present for a while, they are fixed but new >>>>> ones come up. In the end downstream support is constantly manually >>>>> repairing chains. This is why this tool is needed. Both to make those >>>>> changes safer and to save time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I personally have a deep resentment to a "force" flags - not just >>>>>> here, but everywhere. It is never clear what is being forced. Some >>>>>> things cannot or should not be forced. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nir already suggested to remove the force flag. I don't mind, the idea >>>>> was just to keep the old behavior the same if the force flag is not used. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One last note: a CI+1 gives a positive psychological vibe to your >>>>>> reviewer. >>>>>> >>>>> Yes, I know. Most of them have CI+1. They keep randomly failing on >>>>> FC28 (but EL7 succeeds) on every push. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We used to have a regression in iproute on Fedora few weeks ago. a >>>> rebase on master may help. It is your responsibility to find why fc28 >>>> fails, as we cannot merge a patch that does not pass there. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks, I'll rebase them. Hopefully thats it. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> And there is just one that is constantly failing, I even sent an email >>>>> to this list ("Jenkins help") to try to better understand why, but no >>>>> one replied yet. It seems to be complaining about an object not having a >>>>> member, but the member is created at runtime (based on api schema). >>>>> >>>> Today was my lucky day and CI didn't fail with those random errors on umount. So all patches passed, please review: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/topic:snapshot-tools
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/ oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/ List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/RNM4DJYFMHFIDLSS3FHFTMPQDWZ3T3JW/
