fix updating cached mounts that didn't have their mount provider set previously - #33540
Merged
Conversation
icewind1991
requested review from
a team,
CarlSchwan,
PVince81 and
blizzz
and removed request for
a team
August 15, 2022 09:59
Member
|
add unit test if possible ? |
Member
Author
done |
CarlSchwan
approved these changes
Aug 16, 2022
…previously Signed-off-by: Robin Appelman <robin@icewind.nl>
Signed-off-by: Robin Appelman <robin@icewind.nl>
icewind1991
force-pushed
the
mount-provider-migration
branch
from
August 16, 2022 11:47
dd07abc to
887952b
Compare
Merged
4 tasks
Member
|
/backport to stable24 |
9 tasks
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
When a cached mount info has no mount provider set, but it's rootId matches one of the newly registered providers, we might be hitting in a migration case with existing pre-24 mountpoints. So it should be taken in consideration even if it doesn't match the registered mount provider types.