Project

General

Profile

Actions

Backport #17008

closed

jewel: Support asynchronous v2 image creation/cloning

Added by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago. Updated almost 7 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
Release:
jewel
Pull request ID:
Crash signature (v1):
Crash signature (v2):

Related issues 1 (0 open1 closed)

Copied from rbd - Feature #15321: Support asynchronous v2 image creation/cloningResolvedVenky Shankar03/30/2016

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

  • Copied from Feature #15321: Support asynchronous v2 image creation/cloning added
Actions #2

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

Actions #3

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

  • Blocks Backport #17134: jewel: FAILED assert(m_image_ctx.journal == nullptr) added
Actions #4

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

  • Blocks deleted (Backport #17134: jewel: FAILED assert(m_image_ctx.journal == nullptr))
Actions #5

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

  • Blocks Backport #17134: jewel: FAILED assert(m_image_ctx.journal == nullptr) added
Actions #6

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress

The https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10896 PR is not merged in master yet and is needed before this can be backported

Actions #7

Updated by Jason Dillaman over 7 years ago

@Loïc Dachary: I think you have that in reverse. The PR you listed is dependent upon the changes addressed with this ticket's master branch version.

Actions #8

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Need More Info
Actions #9

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

@Jason Borden I think http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15321#note-5 got me confused :-) What did you mean by "until required by #15764" ?

Actions #10

Updated by Jason Dillaman over 7 years ago

@Loïc Dachary: in comment #6, you wrote that this is dependent upon PR 10896, which is not true. PR 10896 is dependent upon tracker #15321.

Actions #11

Updated by Jason Dillaman over 7 years ago

@Loïc Dachary: ... oh, I get what you are saying now. Yes, this particular tracker ticket isn't required until it is required by something else needing to get merged into the jewel branch. :-p

Actions #12

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

@Jason Borden so, if I understand correctly, the fact that http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17134 is blocked because http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17008 is not backported means that it is time to backport http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17008. And it does not matter if https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10896 is not merged yet. All it takes is that one issue to be backported depends on http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17008. You made that comment ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/15321#note-5 ) because it would not have been helpful to backport http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17008 alone. Do I get this right ?

Actions #13

Updated by Jason Dillaman over 7 years ago

@Loïc Dachary: Is #17134 blocked by this? From http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17134#note-2, it looks like it was just a trivial makefile conflict. I have previously backported this PR (when wearing my Red Hat) w/o the need to pull in this one.

Actions #14

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

@Jason Borden the only reason why I thought http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17134 might be blocked by this backport is that it has commits such as "librbd: integrate asynchronous image rewatch state machine" which looked like they it could need this backport. I'm glad to hear there is no relationship: that's one less thing to worry about :-)

Should you backport something ahead of time in another context, feel free to attach notes to the backport issue, it will help.

Actions #15

Updated by Loïc Dachary over 7 years ago

  • Blocks deleted (Backport #17134: jewel: FAILED assert(m_image_ctx.journal == nullptr))
Actions #16

Updated by Nathan Cutler almost 7 years ago

Waiting for https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10896 to be merged - still open.

Actions #17

Updated by Jason Dillaman almost 7 years ago

  • Status changed from Need More Info to Closed

@Nathan Weinberg: I think we should just close this backport -- it will be a huge change to backport to Jewel.

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF