Skip to content

DAOS-19520 dlck: check objects' ILOG - #19028

Open
janekmi wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
janekmi/DAOS-19520-dlck-check-objects-part-1
Open

janekmi wants to merge 1 commit into
masterfrom
janekmi/DAOS-19520-dlck-check-objects-part-1

Conversation

@janekmi

@janekmi janekmi commented Sep 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Skip-func-vm: true
Skip-fault-injection-test: true
Skip-test-el-9.6-rpms: true
Skip-test-leap-15-rpms: true
Skip-func-hw-test: true

Waits for:

Steps for the author:

  • Commit message follows the guidelines.
  • Appropriate Features or Test-tag pragmas were used.
  • Appropriate Functional Test Stages were run.
  • At least two positive code reviews including at least one code owner from each category referenced in the PR.
  • Testing is complete. If necessary, forced-landing label added and a reason added in a comment.

After all prior steps are complete:

  • Gatekeeper requested (daos-gatekeeper added as a reviewer).

@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Ticket title is 'dlck: check object / dkey / akey'
Status is 'In Progress'
https://daosio.atlassian.net/browse/DAOS-19520

@daosbuild3

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Test stage Unit Test bdev completed with status FAILURE. https://jenkins-3.daos.hpc.amslabs.hpecorp.net/job/daos-stack/job/daos/job/PR-19028/1/display/redirect

@daosbuild3

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Test stage Unit Test with memcheck completed with status FAILURE. https://jenkins-3.daos.hpc.amslabs.hpecorp.net/job/daos-stack/job/daos/job/PR-19028/1/display/redirect

@daosbuild3

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@daosbuild3

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Test stage Unit Test completed with status FAILURE. https://jenkins-3.daos.hpc.amslabs.hpecorp.net/job/daos-stack/job/daos/job/PR-19028/1/display/redirect

@janekmi
janekmi force-pushed the janekmi/DAOS-19520-dlck-check-objects-part-1 branch 2 times, most recently from 9b9b9fe to 7e44f0d Compare September 7, 2026 10:30
@janekmi
janekmi requested review from Nasf-Fan and NiuYawei September 7, 2026 10:39
Skip-func-vm: true
Skip-fault-injection-test: true
Skip-test-el-9.6-rpms: true
Skip-test-leap-15-rpms: true
Skip-func-hw-test: true

Signed-off-by: Jan Michalski <jan-marian.michalski@hpe.com>
@janekmi
janekmi force-pushed the janekmi/DAOS-19520-dlck-check-objects-part-1 branch from 7e44f0d to 230a3ed Compare September 9, 2026 13:05
@janekmi
janekmi marked this pull request as ready for review September 9, 2026 13:09
@janekmi
janekmi requested review from a team as code owners September 9, 2026 13:09
Comment thread src/common/btree.c
void *report_arg)
{
if (!btr_ops(tcx)->to_rec_check) {
return -DER_NOSYS;

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would suggest to return 0 if to_rec_check is not registered. The benefits are:

  1. Do not need NOP cont_df_rec_check().
  2. More convenient to use btr_rec_check() for other non-DLCK purpose in the future.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What you suggest is very tempting. On the other hand, the current implementation has one very important benefit for me. You have to think about providing the to_rec_check() callback when you call dbtree_check_inplace() on a new class of trees. Otherwise, it is very easy to forget about it.

What do you think?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As my understand, DLCK usage will generate logs output even if for succeed case, so even if we forget to assign it, we still have way to be aware of that.

Anyway, it is just suggestion.

@janekmi janekmi mentioned this pull request Sep 15, 2026
7 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants