This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 2, 2023. It is now read-only.
More flexible interfaces #80
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
magik6k
force-pushed
the
feat/redo-interfaces
branch
from
fe0c7e2 to
73445bc
Compare
magik6k
force-pushed
the
feat/redo-interfaces
branch
from
be23337 to
442fe78
Compare
|
(Currently based on #81 to have it work in lotus) |
laser
reviewed
Mar 6, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Big changes here - and I'm glad to see that the operational stuff (e.g. worker-related code) is gone.
Two main observations:
- I'm not sure why the
SectorProviderinterface exists when we could simply implementstorage.Storage. That cutover would require that the caller give up control of the picking of the sector number (becausestorage.Storage#NewSectorpicks it for them), but that doesn't seem like a big deal to me. - The
AcquireSectormethod returns a function which I believe is used to coordinate concurrent access to sector files - but the one implementation ofSectorProvider#AcquireSector(Basic) in this PR returns a no-op function, which leads me to believe thatSectorBuilder#ReadPieceFromSealedSectoris racey.
sectorbuild_cgo.go
Outdated
|
|
||
| // TODO: this needs to get smarter when we start supporting partial unseals | ||
| unsealedPath, err := sfs.AllocSector(fs.DataUnsealed, sb.Miner, sb.ssize, true, sectorNum) | ||
| path, doneUnsealed, err := sb.sectors.AcquireSector(ctx, sectorNum, FTUnsealed, FTUnsealed, false) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think you want to pass sectorNum to AcquireSector here (for the temporary file used to hold unsealed bytes).
Imagine a scenario in which SectorBuilder#ReadPieceFromSealedSector is called concurrently for the same sectorNum. The two calls will race: Both will call ffi.Unseal and will provide the same destination file path, and likely clobber each other's file writes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: The above comment assumes that sb.sectors is of type Basic.
laser
reviewed
Mar 6, 2020
Fix AddPiece with existing pieces
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR aims to move a bunch of filesystem/worker handling logic up to implementations, making the codebase here much, much smaller and cleaner, and giving impls better flexibility
Also exposes the new 4-stage sector sealing process