> On Aug. 7, 2020, 12:01 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> > src/slave/csi_server.cpp
> > Lines 200 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/72716/diff/5/?file=2237439#file2237439line200>
> >
> >     Do we need to include `info.type()` in the container prefix? Otherwise 
> > the container prefix for all the managed CSI plugins will be same which may 
> > not be good for debugging.

The plugin name and type already get added into the container ID after the 
prefix, so I think the current code is sufficient: 
https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/c78dc333fc893a43d40dc33299a61987198a6ea9/src/csi/service_manager.cpp#L117-L121

WDYT?


> On Aug. 7, 2020, 12:01 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> > src/slave/csi_server.cpp
> > Lines 336 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/72716/diff/5/?file=2237439#file2237439line336>
> >
> >     Do we need to check if `volume/csi` isolator is enabled? Like:
> >     ```
> >     if (!strings::contains(flags.isolation, "volume/csi")) {
> >       return Error("...");
> >     }
> >     ```
> >     
> >     I think to make the whole CSI volume feature work, both `CSIServer` and 
> > `volume/csi` isolator need to be enabled.
> >     
> >     And in which condition will we call `CSIServer::create` to create 
> > `CSISever`? When `--csi_plugin_config_dir` is specified? If so, I think 
> > here we need a `CHECK` rather than an `if`.

I agree that we should check for the CSI isolator. However, I don't think we 
should use a CHECK within this `create()` method. The `Try` return type 
provides the perfect mechanism for surfacing any failures, which we can handle 
in the agent.


> On Aug. 7, 2020, 12:01 p.m., Qian Zhang wrote:
> > src/slave/csi_server.cpp
> > Lines 413-415 (patched)
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/72716/diff/5/?file=2237439#file2237439line413>
> >
> >     Do we need to define `started` as a promise here? Can we just define it 
> > as a future?
> >     ```
> >     started = process::dispatch(process.get(), &CSIServerProcess::start);
> >     return started;
> >     ```

Yep, we can't use a simple Future because we don't initiate startup during 
server construction, as is the case in the volume manager. 
`started.associate()` allows us to initiate startup using the existing Future 
within the Promise. If we use a raw Future, then the only way to initiate 
startup is to overwrite the stored Future, onto which some publish/unpublish 
calls may have already been chained.


- Greg


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/72716/#review221499
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Aug. 7, 2020, 7 a.m., Greg Mann wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/72716/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Aug. 7, 2020, 7 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Qian Zhang.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-10163
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-10163
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Added implementation of the CSI server.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/CMakeLists.txt 4e15e3d99aa2cce2403fe07e762fef2fb4a27dea 
>   src/Makefile.am 447db323875e4cad46000977f4a61600baff8f89 
>   src/slave/csi_server.hpp 17882e1be5a6c38ca34d7b50d4a6041530e8908c 
>   src/slave/csi_server.cpp PRE-CREATION 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72716/diff/5/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Details at the end of this chain.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg Mann
> 
>

Reply via email to