[sheepdog] [PATCH v5 2/2] collie: add a new option --progress to "node recovery" for showing recovery progress

[Hitoshi Mitake]

At Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:51:43 +0800,
Liu Yuan wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 05:30:22PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> > From: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake.hitoshi at lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > 
> > This patch adds a new option --progress (or -P) to the node recovery
> > subcommand. With this subcommand, users can show a progress of
> > recovery process.
> > 
> > Example:
> > $ sudo collie node recovery --progress
> >  99.7 % [==============================================>] 7047 / 7068
> > 
> > The denominator (7068 in the above case) indicates a number of entire
> > object which should be checked. The numerator (7047 in the above case)
> > indicates a number of objects which is already checked or copied.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake.hitoshi at lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > ---
> > v5:
> >  - remove an unnecesary comment
> >  - fix an invalid usage of recovery_state in showing 100% progress
> > 
> > v4:
> >  - refactor the loop of get_recovery_state()
> > 
> > v3:
> >  - make struct recovery_state a general mechanism for getting recovery
> >    status. Ordinal "collie node recovery" uses struct recovery_state
> >    for detecting recovery state instead of a result of request.
> > 
> > v2:
> >  - don't use new variables for indicating the progress
> >  - clean coding style
> >  -- change names of struct recovery_info's members
> >  -- fill_recovery_progress() -> get_recovery_progress()
> > 
> >  collie/node.c |   88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/collie/node.c b/collie/node.c
> > index 4230af5..0ba14b4 100644
> > --- a/collie/node.c
> > +++ b/collie/node.c
> > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> >  
> >  static struct node_cmd_data {
> >  	bool all_nodes;
> > +	bool recovery_progress;
> >  } node_cmd_data;
> >  
> >  static void cal_total_vdi_size(uint32_t vid, const char *name, const char *tag,
> > @@ -120,10 +121,89 @@ static int node_info(int argc, char **argv)
> >  	return EXIT_SUCCESS;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static int get_recovery_state(struct recovery_state *state)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	struct sd_req req;
> > +
> > +	sd_init_req(&req, SD_OP_STAT_RECOVERY);
> > +	req.data_length = sizeof(*state);
> > +
> > +	ret = collie_exec_req(sdhost, sdport, &req, state);
> > +	if (ret < 0) {
> > +		fprintf(stderr, "Failed to execute request\n");
> > +		return -1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int node_recovery_progress(void)
> > +{
> > +	int result;
> > +	unsigned int prev_nr_total;
> 
> nr_total never changed, simply name it as nr_total and we should use uint64_t
> for it

If node leaving happens during recovery process, nr_total would be
changed. And I think we use the last value.

> 
> > +	struct recovery_state rstate;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * ToDos
> > +	 *
> > +	 * 1. Calculate size of actually copied objects.
> > +	 *    For doing this, not so trivial changes for recovery process are
> > +	 *    required.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * 2. Print remaining physical time.
> > +	 *    Even if it is not so acculate, the information is helpful for
> > +	 *    administrators.
> > +	 */
> > +
> > +	result = get_recovery_state(&rstate);
> > +	if (result < 0)
> > +		return EXIT_SYSFAIL;
> > +
> > +	if (!rstate.in_recovery)
> > +		return EXIT_SUCCESS;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		prev_nr_total = rstate.nr_total;
> > +
> > +		result = get_recovery_state(&rstate);
> > +		if (result < 0)
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		if (!rstate.in_recovery) {
> > +			show_progress(prev_nr_total, prev_nr_total, true);
> > +			break;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		switch (rstate.state) {
> > +		case RW_PREPARE_LIST:
> > +			printf("\rpreparing a checked object list...");
> > +			break;
> > +		case RW_NOTIFY_COMPLETION:
> > +			printf("\rnotifying a completion of recovery...");
> > +			break;
> > +		case RW_RECOVER_OBJ:
> > +			show_progress(rstate.nr_finished, rstate.nr_total,
> > +				true);
> 
> Could you fix your editor so that next line can align to left parenthesis?

If I remember correctly, this alignment based on a parenthesis is not
in our coding style (we discussed about it before).

Thanks,
Hitoshi