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

pool: file: object: clean up health checkers for both types of deletion (backport #9094) #9416

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 15, 2021

Conversation

BlaineEXE
Copy link
Member

@BlaineEXE BlaineEXE commented Dec 13, 2021

Clean up the code used to stop health checkers for all controllers
(pool, file, object). Health checkers should now be stopped when
removing the finalizer for a forced deletion when the CephCluster does
not exist. This prevents leaking a running health checker for a resource
that is going to be imminently removed.

Also tidy the health checker stopping code so that it is similar for all
3 controllers. Of note, the object controller now uses namespace and
name for the object health checker, which would create a problem for
users who create a CephObjectStore with the same name in different
namespaces.

Signed-off-by: Blaine Gardner blaine.gardner@redhat.com
(cherry picked from commit 03ba7de)

Resolved conflicts:
pkg/operator/ceph/file/controller.go
pkg/operator/ceph/object/controller.go
pkg/operator/ceph/pool/controller.go

Description of your changes:

Which issue is resolved by this Pull Request:
Resolves #

Backport of #9094

Checklist:

  • Commit Message Formatting: Commit titles and messages follow guidelines in the developer guide.
  • Skip Tests for Docs: Add the flag for skipping the build if this is only a documentation change. See here for the flag.
  • Skip Unrelated Tests: Add a flag to run tests for a specific storage provider. See test options.
  • Reviewed the developer guide on Submitting a Pull Request
  • Documentation has been updated, if necessary.
  • Unit tests have been added, if necessary.
  • Integration tests have been added, if necessary.
  • Pending release notes updated with breaking and/or notable changes, if necessary.
  • Upgrade from previous release is tested and upgrade user guide is updated, if necessary.
  • Code generation (make codegen) has been run to update object specifications, if necessary.

@BlaineEXE BlaineEXE added the backport This PR *is* a backport PR (as opposed to needs-backport) label Dec 13, 2021
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Dec 13, 2021

Hi @BlaineEXE, this pull request was opened against a release branch, is it expected? Normally patches should go in the master branch first and then be backported to release branches.

@BlaineEXE BlaineEXE changed the title pool: file: object: clean up stop health checkers pool: file: object: clean up health checkers for both types of deletion (backport #9094) Dec 13, 2021
Copy link
Member

@leseb leseb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please remove the following from the commit message:


# Conflicts:
#	pkg/operator/ceph/file/controller.go
#	pkg/operator/ceph/object/controller.go
#	pkg/operator/ceph/pool/controller.go

Clean up the code used to stop health checkers for all controllers
(pool, file, object). Health checkers should now be stopped when
removing the finalizer for a forced deletion when the CephCluster does
not exist. This prevents leaking a running health checker for a resource
that is going to be imminently removed.

Also tidy the health checker stopping code so that it is similar for all
3 controllers. Of note, the object controller now uses namespace and
name for the object health checker, which would create a problem for
users who create a CephObjectStore with the same name in different
namespaces.

Signed-off-by: Blaine Gardner <blaine.gardner@redhat.com>
(cherry picked from commit 03ba7de)
@leseb leseb merged commit 616efb9 into release-1.7 Dec 15, 2021
@leseb leseb deleted the mergify/bp/release-1.7/pr-9094 branch December 15, 2021 08:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
backport This PR *is* a backport PR (as opposed to needs-backport)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants