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

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.

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). >