On Apr 29, 2012 2:51 AM, "Daniel Shahaf" <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
>
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:27:37 +0300:
> > Greg Stein wrote on Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 23:45:12 -0400:
> > > Hey Daniel,
> > >
> > > I had four svnadmin tests dump core due to an assertion: 8, 21, 26,
> > > 27. These are all marked XFail(), so my test run "passed".
> >
> > AFAIK all of those are due to the same issue: dst_fs->uuid not being
> > initialized. Philip noted that there are probably worse problems here,
> > since fs_fs_shared_data_t (ffd->ffsd) holds various locks and caches
that
> > are indexed by UUID only.
>
> We store the following data for use by >1 svn_fs_t object, where today
> the sharing is keyed on UUID only:
>
> typedef struct fs_fs_shared_data_t {
> fs_fs_shared_txn_data_t *txns;
> fs_fs_shared_txn_data_t *free_txn;
> svn_mutex__t *txn_list_lock;
> svn_mutex__t *fs_write_lock;
> svn_mutex__t *txn_current_lock;
> apr_pool_t *common_pool;
> } fs_fs_shared_data_t;
>
> Hotcopy needs to support ≥2 filesystem instances which have the same
> contents and UUID. (Keeping the UUID is part of the API.) However,
> everything above except common_pool needs to be per-instance. So, we
> need some sort of per-instance identifier to use as the cache key.
>
> So, for example, one way to proceed would be to maintain
> a ${REPOS}/db/uuid2 file, which is not exposed to fs-loader.h, and which
> is used as part of the key to ffd->ffsd structures.
>
> Assuming we agree on the course, I should be able to get this
> implemented this week.
I'm confused. How the heck does putting a UUID into svn_fs_t result in such
a fallout? New files!? This sounds brittle and poor encapsulation. It
seemed like an easy problem. Why is it rippling into such a large issue?
-g
Received on 2012-04-29 09:33:24 CEST