-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
Mainlining of Fast Snap logic #804
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?
Conversation
* fix(retrieval): handle pathed IPFS retrieval style, add basic retrieval tests (#720) * ipni: Announce addresses with port * update lotus * make gen --------- Co-authored-by: Rod Vagg <[email protected]>
magik6k
left a comment
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.
Some comments to my code, some comments around the merge. Overall looks really good, let's keep this moving
|
|
||
| for _, sectorRef := range sectorRefs { | ||
| if err := t.sc.Sectors.sindex.StorageLock(lkctx, sectorRef.ID(), storiface.FTNone, requestedTypes); err != nil { | ||
| ok, err := t.sc.Sectors.sindex.StorageTryLock(lkctx, sectorRef.ID(), storiface.FTNone, requestedTypes) |
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.
I'd honestly just entirely get rid of the sector storage lock stuff, it's basically entirely redundant with harmonytask managing pipelines
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.
Is this a blocker? Otherwise, this PR is too big already and it should become an (easy) GitHub issue.
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.
Is this a blocker? Otherwise, this PR is too big already and it should become an (easy) GitHub issue.
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.
iiuc those changes were re-implemented in a slightly different way in main, so we don't really want to backport anything ipni-related.
Initially, this is only a merge, but I need it reviewed as a number of things were changed by both sides. I generally went with the "everyone's right" approach, but where functions were restructured by both sides, this may be incorrect.
DO NOT SUBMIT
Once approved, it still needs other changes to avoid breaking anyone. This PR will be a start for those changes.