Skip to content
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

DAOS-7198 control: Use join request context instead of timeout #5398

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 12, 2021

Conversation

mjmac
Copy link
Contributor

@mjmac mjmac commented Apr 9, 2021

In the MS joinLoop, a short timeout was used to avoid blocking
the loop if a join request handler exited before receiving the
batched join response. Rather than relying on an arbitrary
timeout value, we should instead pass in the join request's
context so that we can correctly wait for the handler to receive
the request or for the context to be canceled. Either way, it
won't block the join loop indefinitely.

Master-PR: #5380

In the MS joinLoop, a short timeout was used to avoid blocking
the loop if a join request handler exited before receiving the
batched join response. Rather than relying on an arbitrary
timeout value, we should instead pass in the join request's
context so that we can correctly wait for the handler to receive
the request or for the context to be canceled. Either way, it
won't block the join loop indefinitely.

Master-PR: #5380

Signed-off-by: Michael MacDonald <mjmac.macdonald@intel.com>
Copy link
Collaborator

@daosbuild1 daosbuild1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. No errors found by checkpatch.

@mjmac mjmac self-assigned this Apr 10, 2021
@mjmac mjmac requested a review from a team April 10, 2021 15:51
@johannlombardi johannlombardi merged commit 00262aa into release/1.2 Apr 12, 2021
@johannlombardi johannlombardi deleted the mjmac/DAOS-7198-1.2 branch April 12, 2021 14:34
@ashleypittman ashleypittman mentioned this pull request Apr 28, 2021
@ashleypittman ashleypittman mentioned this pull request May 20, 2021
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.

3 participants