Alexey Serbin has posted comments on this change. ( http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/14943 )
Change subject: [consensus] respond lock-free to RequestVote() if busy ...................................................................... Patch Set 2: (1 comment) http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14943/2/src/kudu/consensus/raft_consensus.cc File src/kudu/consensus/raft_consensus.cc: http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/14943/2/src/kudu/consensus/raft_consensus.cc@2342 PS2, Line 2342: FillVoteResponseVoteDenied(ConsensusErrorPB::CONSENSUS_BUSY, response, : ResponderTermPolicy::CLEAR); > This is a change in behavior (clearing the responder term), isn't it? What If leaving it as-is (i.e. not even clearing) is simpler to grasp, I can post a patch simply not touch the field. Or your question is about whether it's safe to not even set the repsponder's term? If the latter, I'm going to post a clean-up patch for the leader election piece with assertions on having the term in places where it's expected to arrive. Continuing the latter theme, the semantics of the responder_term assumes the receiver of the response can make some sense of that field. Current code isn't using it at all (and if I'm not mistaken the Raft spec doesn't require it to be set when responding with NO vote). -- To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/14943 To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings Gerrit-Project: kudu Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: I95d5cbe455fefc4cdc540ee1e7b69e1f21b6ebc0 Gerrit-Change-Number: 14943 Gerrit-PatchSet: 2 Gerrit-Owner: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Adar Dembo <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Andrew Wong <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins (120) Gerrit-Comment-Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 05:52:09 +0000 Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
