-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Fix for NFS3 primary storage pool is failing to come out of maintenan… #71
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -905,6 +905,11 @@ private boolean destroyStoragePoolHandleException(Connect conn, String uuid) | |
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public boolean deleteStoragePool(String uuid, Map<String, String> details) { | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. If you are not using details at all, why will a client code will use this method and not use public boolean deleteStoragePool(String uuid) ?
Collaborator
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
||
| return deleteStoragePool(uuid); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| @Override | ||
| public boolean deleteStoragePool(String uuid) { | ||
| logger.info("Attempting to remove storage pool " + uuid + " from libvirt"); | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it be applicable to all vendors?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
??
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since both changes are in common/shared components, have we assessed the impact on other storage vendors? I just want to ensure that these updates don't introduce any unintended behaviour changes outside the ONTAP implementation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, this impacts all the vendors using this. Currently, apart from our plugin, I've noticed only DefaultPrimary plugin using it. So, I've tested the same with that plugin and confirmed that the same issue exists even there. And these code changes have fixed it.