From reviews-return-92097-apmail-mesos-reviews-archive=mesos.apache.org@mesos.apache.org Mon Aug 3 01:17:05 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-mesos-reviews-archive@locus.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-reviews-archive@locus.apache.org Received: from mailroute1-lw-us.apache.org (mailroute1-lw-us.apache.org [207.244.88.153]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F88A1A083 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailroute1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailroute1-lw-us.apache.org) with SMTP id 006611245F8 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:17:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 90414 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2020 01:17:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-mesos-reviews-archive@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 90373 invoked by uid 500); 3 Aug 2020 01:17:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact reviews-help@mesos.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: reviews@mesos.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list reviews@mesos.apache.org Received: (qmail 90360 invoked by uid 99); 3 Aug 2020 01:17:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Aug 2020 01:17:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 319DA18147D for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:17:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.314 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.314 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT=0.25, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.2, KAM_DMARC_NONE=0.25, KAM_DMARC_STATUS=0.01, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.4, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-ec2-va.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mw_LXYYTv2zr for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: None (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=95.217.165.199; helo=reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org; envelope-from=noreply@reviews.apache.org; receiver= Received: from reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org (static.199.165.217.95.clients.your-server.de [95.217.165.199]) by mx1-ec2-va.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-ec2-va.apache.org) with ESMTP id A3144BB9B9 for ; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:17:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org (reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org [127.0.0.1]) by reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26AC16025E; Mon, 3 Aug 2020 01:16:53 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="===============1934605165958320590==" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Review Request 72726: Fixed a bug in CSI volume manager initialization. From: Qian Zhang To: Qian Zhang , Andrei Budnik Cc: Greg Mann , mesos Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2020 01:16:53 -0000 Message-ID: <20200803011653.14033.6818@reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org> X-ReviewBoard-URL: https://reviews.apache.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Sender: Qian Zhang X-ReviewGroup: mesos X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, OOF, AutoReply X-ReviewRequest-URL: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72726/ X-Sender: Qian Zhang References: <20200731190359.17393.36714@reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org> In-Reply-To: <20200731190359.17393.36714@reviews-vm-he-fi.apache.org> Reply-To: Qian Zhang X-ReviewRequest-Repository: mesos --===============1934605165958320590== MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72726/#review221449 ----------------------------------------------------------- src/csi/v0_volume_manager.cpp Lines 645-651 (original), 645-651 (patched) I am a bit confused about the purpose of this code. This is a `foreach` loop for `services`, but in each iteration of the loop we always use the **first service** (i.e. `*services.begin()`) or the **CONTROLLER_SERVICE** (the old code) to make the `getPluginInfo` call. And in the code below, we compare the result of each call, but I think they must be consistent since we make the exactly same call in each iteration, right? So I guess we should make the `getPluginInfo` call with the `service` variable as the first parameter, right? - Qian Zhang On Aug. 1, 2020, 3:03 a.m., Greg Mann wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/72726/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Aug. 1, 2020, 3:03 a.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Andrei Budnik and Qian Zhang. > > > Bugs: MESOS-10163 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-10163 > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Previously, the volume managers would assume that they could > make CONTROLLER_SERVICE calls during plugin initialization, > regardless of whether or not the plugin provides that service. > > > Diffs > ----- > > src/csi/v0_volume_manager.cpp 4b056e7525a5dde62e5e74bf592bfa37cccf7736 > src/csi/v1_volume_manager.cpp 9e449472252fd03940abaedcc5bd102fdaa63b47 > > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/72726/diff/1/ > > > Testing > ------- > > This change is necessary for a subsequent test later in this chain to pass. > > > Thanks, > > Greg Mann > > --===============1934605165958320590==--