Skip to content

Include CephFS mount options from Manila as posix mount options. #15

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

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tomclark0
Copy link

This change extracts the __mount_options field from the metadata of Manila shares and includes it in the mount_options variable.
This field is expected to be populated only with CephFS shares.

Key functionality:

  • Pass Manila provided mount options as mount_options
  • Support for mounting CephFS when multiple backends or multiple CephFS pools are in-use.

This allows the handling of CephFS shares in Manila, where multiple CephFS pools are used within a single Ceph cluster.

@tomclark0 tomclark0 marked this pull request as ready for review January 24, 2025 09:29
@priteau priteau requested a review from sjpb January 30, 2025 15:05
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Defaults are documented in https://github.com/stackhpc/ansible-role-os-manila-mount?tab=readme-ov-file#role-variables, the behaviour of defaults also coming from the share should be documented.

@tomclark0
Copy link
Author

Thanks @sjpb.
I've changed approach and removed the user facing var as a duplicate.
Any manila provided mount options either manually set via openstack share set --property "__mount_options=" share_id or added due to different backends are honoured on a per-share basis.

@priteau priteau requested a review from sjpb January 31, 2025 14:08
@sjpb sjpb self-requested a review March 4, 2025 09:19
Copy link
Contributor

@sjpb sjpb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants