Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, 06 Jul 2021 01:23 +00:00:
> Julian Foad wrote on Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:32:24 +0100:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 14:27:30 +0100:
> > There could be two angles to view this issue. One angle is looking at
> > the specifics of w
Julian Foad wrote on Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:32:24 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 14:27:30 +0100:
> There could be two angles to view this issue. One angle is looking at
> the specifics of why WD's replicator wants different behaviour, which
> I will go
Den tis 29 juni 2021 kl 12:33 skrev Julian Foad :
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 14:27:30 +0100:
> > > Now filed as: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4877
> >
> > "Now"? The issue is a month old.
>
> You're absolutely right! That's when I was made a
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 14:27:30 +0100:
> > Now filed as: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4877
>
> "Now"? The issue is a month old.
You're absolutely right! That's when I was made aware this issue had come up
again. First I noticed we had not
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 14:27:30 +0100:
> Now filed as: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4877
>
"Now"? The issue is a month old.
> THE UNWANTED BEHAVIOUR
>
> The code we are concerned with is a section of the FSFS commit finalization
> code, in commit_body() called
hts?
[1] i4877-simulated-fail-1.patch
[2] i4877-unlock-protorev-fix-1.patch
[3] output-fakeerror-buggy
[4] output-fakeerror-fixed
--
- JulianTHIS PATCH IS NOT INTENDED TO BE COMMITTED
For issue #4877 "FSFS commit failure should release txn proto-rev lock"
This patch is part of a repr
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:11 +00:00:
> (Off the top of my head, did sub tests 1-8 fail with "already locked"
> and 9 is the odd one out?)
In the file "output" inside the tarball you sent, yes. I haven't run
the tests on my machine.
Thanks for the response, Daniel. I'm away and it will be a few days before I
can check and respond completely.
(Off the top of my head, did sub tests 1-8 fail with "already locked" and 9 is
the odd one out?)
30 Jul 2020 00:00:32 Daniel Shahaf :
> (I wasn't going to comment on this since I don't
(I wasn't going to comment on this since I don't know this part of the
code too well, but given the crickets…)
So, the undesired behaviour is this:
> This commit failed unexpectedly:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
> "/home/julianfoad/tmp/svn/wd-nv-7983/test-release-proto-rev-lock-
Ping: can anyone comment on this proposed patch?
- Julian
Julian Foad wrote:
CC'ing more possible experts Dmitry, Evgeny: any thoughts about whether
this change makes sense for FSFS commit?
- Julian
Julian Foad wrote:
TL;DR: I propose a change to the FSFS commit-transaction function, to
r
CC'ing more possible experts Dmitry, Evgeny: any thoughts about whether
this change makes sense for FSFS commit?
- Julian
Julian Foad wrote:
TL;DR: I propose a change to the FSFS commit-transaction function, to
release the proto-rev write lock if an error occurs while it has this lock.
The
TL;DR: I propose a change to the FSFS commit-transaction function, to
release the proto-rev write lock if an error occurs while it has this lock.
The practical applications of this change are rather obscure, which
perhaps explains why it has not been needed before. In particular, it
apparentl
12 matches
Mail list logo
