[ovirt-devel] Re: Request for reviews - vdsm-tool update-volume

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 7:59 AM Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:49 AM Germano Veit Michel <germano(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:56 PM Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:24 AM Germano Veit Michel <germano(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I'm working an a tool (vdsm-tool update-volume) to make modifying SD >>> metadata easier and more importantly, safer. This is very useful to recover >>> from failed LSMs or snapshot issues. >>> > >>> > The plan is to use the VDSM API (modified by some of these patches) >>> and add a tool (vdsm-tool) that talks to the API and modifies the volumes >>> metadata as required by the user. Currently this is done manually, i.e.: >>> looking at MD_XXX tags, doing dd, sed and then dd back to the storage. Any >>> wrong argument (like a skip in place of a seek) can ruin the entire >>> metadata, so this tool can be quite handy. >>> > >>> > The code is not necessarily 100% finished yet, but I've been testing >>> this for some time and it seems ok from a functional point of view. I'm >>> just not sure everything I did (especially inside VDSM, example 94366) is >>> correct. Your comments on what can/should be improved are very welcome at >>> this point. Please see this series and help reviewing it. >>> > >>> > >>> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/topic:update-volume+(status:open+OR+status:m... >>> > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/93258/ >>> >>> I am not a maintainer of vdsm.storage, but I can say that I'm missing >>> a high-level description of the change that you are suggesting, and >>> its motivation. When do you see a need to manually change the metadata >>> of volumes? Shouldn't we fix the bug that causes this need? >>> >> >> Ohh, sorry. I thought it was obvious. This is for snapshot related >> issues. These bugs have been present for a while, they are fixed but new >> ones come up. In the end downstream support is constantly manually >> repairing chains. This is why this tool is needed. Both to make those >> changes safer and to save time. >> >> >>> I personally have a deep resentment to a "force" flags - not just >>> here, but everywhere. It is never clear what is being forced. Some >>> things cannot or should not be forced. >>> >> >> Nir already suggested to remove the force flag. I don't mind, the idea >> was just to keep the old behavior the same if the force flag is not used. >> >> >>> >>> One last note: a CI+1 gives a positive psychological vibe to your >>> reviewer. >>> >> Yes, I know. Most of them have CI+1. They keep randomly failing on FC28 >> (but EL7 succeeds) on every push. >> > > We used to have a regression in iproute on Fedora few weeks ago. a rebase > on master may help. It is your responsibility to find why fc28 fails, as we > cannot merge a patch that does not pass there. > Thanks, I'll rebase them. Hopefully thats it. > > And there is just one that is constantly failing, I even sent an email to >> this list ("Jenkins help") to try to better understand why, but no one >> replied yet. It seems to be complaining about an object not having a >> member, but the member is created at runtime (based on api schema). >> >