DAOS-19087 container: Disallow user-specified UUIDs#18636
Conversation
|
Ticket title is 'Rebuild and container IV activities may result in orphan container children' |
|
Test stage Functional Cluster Box Medium MD on SSD completed with status UNSTABLE. https://jenkins-3.daos.hpc.amslabs.hpecorp.net/job/daos-stack/job/daos//view/change-requests/job/PR-18636/1/testReport/ |
|
Test stage Functional Hardware Medium MD on SSD completed with status UNSTABLE. https://jenkins-3.daos.hpc.amslabs.hpecorp.net/job/daos-stack/job/daos//view/change-requests/job/PR-18636/1/testReport/ |
Features: container Signed-off-by: Li Wei <liwei@hpe.com>
liw
force-pushed
the
liw/cont_create-uuid
branch
from
80f53ea to
430cc07
Compare
liw
left a comment
liw
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we consider the overall change as a DAOS API change? If so, we need to increment API_VERSION_MAJOR from 2 to 3, is that correct?
| goto err_prop; | ||
|
|
||
| /** generate a UUID for the new container */ | ||
| uuid_generate(args->uuid); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we consider the overall change as a DAOS API change, should we remove field daos_cont_create_t.uuid?
| * da_cont with duns_resolve_path(). | ||
| * The container UUID is always generated by the DAOS system and users are not permitted to | ||
| * specify it; any value set on input is ignored. The generated cont UUID or the label is | ||
| * returned as a string in \a da_cont with duns_resolve_path(). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is where I'm most ignorant about. Are there any other changes required? And, if we consider the overall change as a DAOS API change, should we remove this field?
2 participants
Experimental.
Steps for the author:
After all prior steps are complete: