> As far as I know, there's no explicit guarantee on the order in which
> fini is called, so we cannot rely on it to do cleanup because ec needs
> that all its underlying xlators be fully functional to finish the cleanup.
What kind of cleanup are we talking about here? We already need to
handle
On 07/25/2016 02:41 AM, Xavier Hernandez wrote:
Hi Jeff,
On 22/07/16 15:37, Jeff Darcy wrote:
Gah! sorry sorry, I meant to send the mail as SIGTERM. Not SIGKILL.
So xavi
and I were wondering why cleanup_and_exit() is not sending
GF_PARENT_DOWN
event.
OK, then that grinding sound you hear is
Hi Jeff,
On 22/07/16 15:37, Jeff Darcy wrote:
Gah! sorry sorry, I meant to send the mail as SIGTERM. Not SIGKILL. So xavi
and I were wondering why cleanup_and_exit() is not sending GF_PARENT_DOWN
event.
OK, then that grinding sound you hear is my brain shifting gears. ;) It
seems that
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > Gah! sorry sorry, I meant to send the mail as SIGTERM. Not SIGKILL. So
> xavi
> > and I were wondering why cleanup_and_exit() is not sending GF_PARENT_DOWN
> > event.
>
> OK, then that grinding sound you hear is my brain
> Gah! sorry sorry, I meant to send the mail as SIGTERM. Not SIGKILL. So xavi
> and I were wondering why cleanup_and_exit() is not sending GF_PARENT_DOWN
> event.
OK, then that grinding sound you hear is my brain shifting gears. ;) It
seems that cleanup_and_exit will call xlator.fini in some
http://review.gluster.org/14980, this is where we have all the context
about why I sent out this mail. Basically the tests were failing because
umount is racing with version-updation xattrop. While I fixed the test to
handle that race, xavi was wondering why GF_PARENT_DOWN event didn't come.
I
It is only calling fini() apart from that not much.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Gah! sorry sorry, I meant to send the mail as SIGTERM. Not SIGKILL. So
> xavi and I were wondering why cleanup_and_exit() is not sending
> GF_PARENT_DOWN
Gah! sorry sorry, I meant to send the mail as SIGTERM. Not SIGKILL. So xavi
and I were wondering why cleanup_and_exit() is not sending GF_PARENT_DOWN
event.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> > Does anyone know why GF_PARENT_DOWN is not triggered on SIGKILL?
> Does anyone know why GF_PARENT_DOWN is not triggered on SIGKILL? It will give
> a chance for xlators to do any cleanup they need to do. For example ec can
> complete the delayed xattrops.
Nothing is triggered on SIGKILL. SIGKILL is explicitly defined to terminate a
process *immediately*.
Does anyone know why GF_PARENT_DOWN is not triggered on SIGKILL? It will
give a chance for xlators to do any cleanup they need to do. For example ec
can complete the delayed xattrops.
--
Pranith
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
10 matches
Mail list logo