Thanks Rajesh, I was looking at 3.6 only to check on some locking issues that we were seeing. However, we would like to see this in master. Please feel free to suggest modifications/modify the code as you see fit. Are there plans of having a more general way of integrating other underlying snapshotting mechanisms such as btrfs/lxd as well?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Rajesh Joseph <rjos...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Kaushal M <kshlms...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:38 AM, B.K.Raghuram <bkr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > We had hosted some changes to an old version of glusterfs (3.6.1) in >> order >> > to incorporate ZFS snapshot support for gluster snapshot commands. These >> > have been done quite a while back and were not forward ported to newer >> > versions of glusterfs. I have a couple of questions on this : >> > >> > 1. If one needs to incorporate these changes in their current or >> modified >> > form into the glusterfs master, what is the procedure to do so? >> > >> > 2. Since the above process may take longer to roll in, we would like to >> get >> > the changes into at least the latest version of the 3.6 branch. In >> order to >> > do this, I tried the following and needed some help : >> > >> > I tried to apply the two ZFS relates commits >> > (https://github.com/fractalio/glusterfs/commits/release-3.6) to the >> latest >> > gluster code in the guster-3.6 branch. I hit one merge conflict per >> > commit, both in xlators/mgmt/glusterd/src/glusterd-snapshot.c. The >> attached >> > glusterd-snapshot.c_1 is the file with the merge conflicts after >> applying >> > the first commit and glusterd-snapshot.c_2 is the one applying the >> second >> > commit. In order to process, I removed the HEAD changes in each of the >> merge >> > conflicts and proceeded just to see if anything else breaks but it went >> > through. glusterd-snapshot.c_1_corrected and >> glusterd-snapshot.c_2_corrected >> > and the corresponding files after removing the merge conflicts. >> > >> > The question I had is, are the changes that I made to correct the merge >> > conflicts safe? If not, could someone provide some suggestions on how to >> > correct the two conflicts? >> > >> > The file cmd_log contains the history of commands that I went through >> in the >> > process.. >> > >> >> Thanks for sharing this Ram! >> >> Rajesh is the right person to answer your questions. As a GlusterD >> maintainer, I'll go through this and see if I can answer as well. >> >> > Overall the merge resolution seems fine, except few mistakes. e.g. in > glusterd-snapshot.c_2 you missed > to add "(unmount == _gf_true)" in the while loop in function > "glusterd_do_lvm_snapshot_remove". > > In function "glusterd_lvm_snapshot_remove" wrong chunk of code added. The > "if" condition should break here > instead of continuing from here. > > Also I think it would be better to rebase the change against master > instead of 3.6. > > Apart from this I am yet to review the complete change. I have taken an > initial look and seems like > we do need some amount of cleanup to the code before it can be taken in. I > also need to see how well it will > work the existing framework. I will go through it and provide a detailed > comments later. > > Thanks & Regards, > Rajesh > > > >> > Thanks, >> > -Ram >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Gluster-devel mailing list >> > Gluster-devel@gluster.org >> > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >> > >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel