On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 7:35 AM Ajin Cherian <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 4:22 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:28 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > If we want to avoid continuously syncing newly added slots in later > > > cycles and instead focus only on the ones that failed to sync during > > > the first attempt, one approach is to maintain a list of failed slots > > > from the initial cycle and only retry those in subsequent attempts. > > > But this will add complexity to the implementation. > > > > > > > There will be some additional code for this but overall it improves > > the code in the lower level functions. We may want to use the existing > > remote_slot list for this purpose. > > > > The current proposed change in low-level functions appears to be > > difficult to maintain, especially the change proposed in > > update_and_persist_local_synced_slot(). If we can find a better way to > > achieve the same then we can consider the current approach as well. > > > > Next patch, I'll work on addressing this comment. I'll need to > restructure the code to make this happen. >
Okay, thanks Ajin. I will resume review after this comment is addressed as I am assuming that the new logic will get rid of most of the current wait logic and thus it makes sense to review it after it is addressed. thanks Shveta
