From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@whamcloud.com>
Cc: Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] An alternate approach to preparing lustre for upstream submission
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2021 16:32:34 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y2h9jmh9.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53FA16ED-D466-43C4-9958-6AE9452FA351@whamcloud.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1261 bytes --]
Hi Andreas,
thanks for your thorough review.
I've created
LU-14291 - Improve use of HAVE_SERVER_SUPPORT and others for
Linux-kernel client
LU-14290 - Convert fault-injection framework to match the model using
in linux
LU-14289 - Restrict libcfs to compatibility code only
LU-14288 - Enhance nodemap ranges to work better with IPv6
With respect to CDEBUG(), while no-one else may have stated a
requirement to remove CDEBUG() for upstream submission, it is something
that I personally feel strongly about.
It isn't CDEBUG itself that is the problem, it is the back-end code for
gathering the logs and writing them out. I wouldn't feel comfortable
submitting that code upstream. This is the ring-buffer code that you
mentioned.
While tracepoint are often quite verbose code-wise as you suggest, I
don't think they have to be. I think (without actually having tried
it) that trace_printk() can be used to crate an alternate CDEBUG()
macro, so that all the CDEBUG() calls can be left unchanged.
Converting some or all of these to more traditional tracepoints could
be done later as the need or desire arose. I will see if I can make
this work in due course.
I'm looking forward to the 2.14.0 release :-)
Thanks,
NeilBrown
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 853 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 165 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
lustre-devel mailing list
lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-04 5:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-11 4:04 [lustre-devel] An alternate approach to preparing lustre for upstream submission NeilBrown
2020-12-23 23:21 ` Andreas Dilger
2021-01-04 5:32 ` NeilBrown [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y2h9jmh9.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=adilger@whamcloud.com \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).