On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:45:46PM +0200, Miroslav Zagorac wrote:
> On 08.04.2022 16:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > My concern is essentially this one: is there any risk that a 2.5 user
> > currently using opentracing would be hit by a bug introduced with this
> > patch ? The code *seems* to be
On 08.04.2022 16:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> My concern is essentially this one: is there any risk that a 2.5 user
> currently using opentracing would be hit by a bug introduced with this
> patch ? The code *seems* to be isolated only in the parts that are
> enabled by OT_USE_VARS but I'm asking
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 04:04:07PM +0200, Miroslav Zagorac wrote:
> > - 0014-MAJOR-opentracing-reenable-usage-of-vars-to-transmit.patch
> >=> while I'm fine for 2.6, I'm really not for 2.5 without a big
> > compelling reason. It's a feature addition, not a bug fix.
> > Either
On 08.04.2022 15:47, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Thanks, but now I'm having further questions:
- 0006-BUG-MINOR-opentracing-setting-the-return-value-in-fu.patch
- 0016-BUG-BUILD-opentracing-fixed-OT_DEFINE-variable-setti.patch
=> these ones are bug fixes that are independent on the series, and
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 03:36:30PM +0200, Miroslav Zagorac wrote:
> Hello Willy,
>
> today I tested the operation speed of the opentracing module on branch 2.4
> and 2.5 several times and unfortunately I can't confirm what I wrote
> yesterday (that the operation speed is almost doubled).
>
> The
Hi Miroslav,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 11:01:49AM +0200, Miroslav Zagorac wrote:
> Hello Willy,
>
> the attachment contains patches for haproxy branches 2.4 and 2.[56].
>
> Branch 2.4 does not have several patches because they are not
> applicable to it. The numbering has stayed the same, so you
Hello Willy,
today I tested the operation speed of the opentracing module on branch
2.4 and 2.5 several times and unfortunately I can't confirm what I wrote
yesterday (that the operation speed is almost doubled).
The result I get today is almost the same speed.
I don't know what the problem
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 08:33:10PM +0200, Miroslav Zagorac wrote:
> On 07.04.2022 20:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > No, really, do not bother doing that. Just tell me which ones are bug
> > fixes that need to be backported, as we'll backport them the usual way
> > as part of the regular maintenance
On 07.04.2022 20:02, Willy Tarreau wrote:
No, really, do not bother doing that. Just tell me which ones are bug
fixes that need to be backported, as we'll backport them the usual way
as part of the regular maintenance process anyway. If you tell me "those
marked bugs ought to be backported
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 07:15:21PM +0200, Miroslav Zagorac wrote:
> On 07.04.2022 18:27, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Hi Miroslav!
> >
>
> Hello Willi,
>
> at first I would generally say that I did not think that some of these
> patches could be backported to older versions of haproxy. I will look
On 07.04.2022 18:27, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Hi Miroslav!
Hello Willi,
at first I would generally say that I did not think that some of these
patches could be backported to older versions of haproxy. I will look
at what can be applied to older versions and send group patches for
each of them
Hi Miroslav!
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 01:12:19PM +0200, Miroslav Zagorac wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am sending you a set of patches that return the ability to use
> haproxy variables to transfer opentracing context.
>
Thanks. I'm having just a few minor questions (and I'll eventually
complete
Hello all,
I am sending you a set of patches that return the ability to use
haproxy variables to transfer opentracing context.
01 Revert "MINOR: opentracing: change the scope of the variable
'ot.uuid' from 'sess' to 'txn'"
02 MINOR: opentracing: only takes the variables lock on shared
13 matches
Mail list logo
