| Message ID | 1590444502-20533-1-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | lustre: merged OpenSFS client patches from April 30 to today | expand |
On Mon, May 25 2020, James Simmons wrote: > Merge the client side patches that landed to the OpenSFS > tree since Apirl 30 to today. Include a fid missing patches > as well and one patch to fix issues with 2 patches from the > earlier 600+ patch set. Please review to ensure their correctness. Hi James, I tried applying these and hit lots of conflicts. What tree are they on top of? Thanks, NeilBrown > > Alexander Boyko (1): > lustre: llog: allow delete of zero size llog > > Amir Shehata (2): > lnet: restrict gateway selection > lnet: use the same src nid for discovery > > Andreas Dilger (5): > lustre: llite: verify truncated xattr is handled > lustre: obd: fix printing of client connection UUID > lustre: llite: restore ll_dcompare() > lustre: ldlm: use proper units for timeouts > lustre: lmv: do not print MDTs that are inactive > > Andriy Skulysh (1): > lustre: ptlrpc: connect to MDT stucks > > Bobi Jam (2): > lustre: lov: lov_io_sub_init()) ASSERTION > lustre: llite: do not flush COW pages from mapping > > Chris Horn (2): > lnet: Introduce constant for the lolnd NID > lnet: Add MD options for response tracking > > James Simmons (2): > lustre: cleanups and bug fixes > lnet: stop using struct timeval > > Lai Siyao (3): > lustre: uapi: add OBD_CONNECT2_FIDMAP > lustre: dne: support directory restripe > lustre: dne: improve temp file name check > > Mr NeilBrown (13): > lnet: merge lnet_md_alloc into lnet_md_build. > lnet: always put a page list into struct lnet_libmd > lnet: discard kvec option from lnet_libmd. > lnet: remove msg_iov from lnet_msg. > lnet: o2iblnd: discard kiblnd_setup_rd_iov > lustre: Remove inappropriate uses of BIT() macro. > lnet: libcfs: use BIT() macro where appropriate > lustre: llite: clean up pcc_layout_wait() > lustre: misc: declare static chars as const where possible. > lnet: use kmem_cache_zalloc as appropriate. > lnet: remove lnet_extract_iov() > lnet: simplify ksock_tx. > lnet: socklnd: discard tx_iov. > > NeilBrown (2): > lustre: fid: revert seq_client_rpc patch. > lustre: fld: convert cache_flush file to LPROC_SEQ_FOPS > > Oleg Drokin (3): > lustre: ptlrpc: return proper write count from ping_store > lustre: osc: Do not wait for grants for too long > lustre: osc: Ensure immediate departure of sync write pages > > Qian Yingjin (1): > lustre: Send file creation time to clients > > Sebastien Buisson (2): > lustre: sec: check permissions for changelogs access > lustre: mgc: protect from NULL exp in mgc_enqueue() > > Sergey Cheremencev (1): > lustre: quota: quota pools for OSTs > > Shaun Tancheff (1): > lustre: all: Cleanup LASSERTF uses missing newlines > > Swapnil Pimpale (1): > lustre: fallocate: Implement fallocate preallocate operation > > Wang Shilong (3): > lustre: llite: fix to make jobstats work for async ra > lustre: llite: fix possible divide zero in ll_use_fast_io() > lustre: llite: check if page truncated in ll_write_begin() > > fs/lustre/fid/fid_request.c | 12 +-- > fs/lustre/fld/fld_cache.c | 40 -------- > fs/lustre/fld/fld_internal.h | 7 -- > fs/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c | 31 +++--- > fs/lustre/include/cl_object.h | 44 ++++++++- > fs/lustre/include/lu_object.h | 16 +-- > fs/lustre/include/lustre_dlm.h | 17 ++-- > fs/lustre/include/lustre_import.h | 4 +- > fs/lustre/include/lustre_lmv.h | 94 ++++++++++++++++-- > fs/lustre/include/lustre_req_layout.h | 3 + > fs/lustre/include/lustre_swab.h | 2 +- > fs/lustre/include/obd_support.h | 5 +- > fs/lustre/include/obd_target.h | 54 ++++++++++ > fs/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_lockd.c | 3 +- > fs/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_request.c | 1 + > fs/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_resource.c | 11 ++- > fs/lustre/llite/dcache.c | 56 ++++++++--- > fs/lustre/llite/dir.c | 33 +++++-- > fs/lustre/llite/file.c | 84 +++++++++++++++- > fs/lustre/llite/lcommon_cl.c | 2 + > fs/lustre/llite/llite_internal.h | 6 +- > fs/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c | 6 +- > fs/lustre/llite/llite_mmap.c | 2 +- > fs/lustre/llite/lproc_llite.c | 19 ++-- > fs/lustre/llite/namei.c | 5 +- > fs/lustre/llite/pcc.c | 17 ++-- > fs/lustre/llite/rw.c | 13 ++- > fs/lustre/llite/rw26.c | 16 ++- > fs/lustre/llite/statahead.c | 2 +- > fs/lustre/llite/vvp_io.c | 19 ++-- > fs/lustre/llite/vvp_object.c | 2 +- > fs/lustre/llite/xattr.c | 15 ++- > fs/lustre/lmv/lmv_obd.c | 66 +++++++++---- > fs/lustre/lov/lov_cl_internal.h | 6 +- > fs/lustre/lov/lov_io.c | 31 ++++-- > fs/lustre/mdc/mdc_changelog.c | 1 + > fs/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c | 41 +++++--- > fs/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c | 11 ++- > fs/lustre/obdclass/cl_page.c | 1 - > fs/lustre/obdclass/class_obd.c | 35 +++---- > fs/lustre/obdclass/llog.c | 9 +- > fs/lustre/obdclass/llog_cat.c | 3 +- > fs/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c | 8 +- > fs/lustre/obdclass/obd_mount.c | 2 +- > fs/lustre/osc/osc_cache.c | 33 ++++++- > fs/lustre/osc/osc_internal.h | 3 + > fs/lustre/osc/osc_io.c | 56 +++++++++-- > fs/lustre/osc/osc_request.c | 70 ++++++++++++- > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c | 2 +- > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/events.c | 2 +- > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/import.c | 4 +- > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 26 ++++- > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/llog_client.c | 4 + > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c | 4 +- > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c | 16 ++- > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpc_internal.h | 19 ++++ > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/wiretest.c | 16 ++- > include/linux/lnet/lib-lnet.h | 56 +---------- > include/linux/lnet/lib-types.h | 15 +-- > include/uapi/linux/lnet/lnet-types.h | 11 +++ > include/uapi/linux/lnet/lnetst.h | 8 +- > include/uapi/linux/lustre/lustre_idl.h | 28 ++++-- > include/uapi/linux/lustre/lustre_user.h | 51 +++++++++- > net/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd_cb.c | 122 +++-------------------- > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd.h | 16 +-- > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_cb.c | 68 +++++-------- > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c | 32 +++--- > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_proto.c | 10 +- > net/lnet/libcfs/debug.c | 2 +- > net/lnet/libcfs/libcfs_string.c | 4 +- > net/lnet/libcfs/module.c | 17 ++-- > net/lnet/lnet/api-ni.c | 16 +-- > net/lnet/lnet/config.c | 16 +-- > net/lnet/lnet/lib-md.c | 168 ++++++++++++++++---------------- > net/lnet/lnet/lib-me.c | 2 +- > net/lnet/lnet/lib-move.c | 167 ++++++++++++++----------------- > net/lnet/lnet/lib-msg.c | 5 +- > net/lnet/lnet/lib-socket.c | 34 ++----- > net/lnet/lnet/lo.c | 17 +--- > net/lnet/lnet/peer.c | 17 +++- > net/lnet/lnet/router.c | 2 +- > net/lnet/selftest/conctl.c | 1 - > net/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c | 6 +- > net/lnet/selftest/conrpc.h | 1 - > net/lnet/selftest/console.h | 1 - > 85 files changed, 1201 insertions(+), 802 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 fs/lustre/include/obd_target.h > > -- > 1.8.3.1
> > Merge the client side patches that landed to the OpenSFS > > tree since Apirl 30 to today. Include a fid missing patches > > as well and one patch to fix issues with 2 patches from the > > earlier 600+ patch set. Please review to ensure their correctness. > > Hi James, > I tried applying these and hit lots of conflicts. > What tree are they on top of? This is based off the top of my tree. Currently I'm using my tree as the OpenSFS version of the Linux client so I only add things that land. Your tree is more the development / prototype tree since it has not yet landed things. So most likely its the LNet LU-13004 work that is conflicting. I also run the patches by checkpatch which has the LNET comment change that wasn't in the OpenSFS branch until just recently; OpenSFS commit d3f1ceeb123da9603cd5ee3acbd4ee638a995f10. That should reduce the conflicts going forward. We are getting to the point in which both our trees are almost in sync ;-) > Thanks, > NeilBrown > > > > > > Alexander Boyko (1): > > lustre: llog: allow delete of zero size llog > > > > Amir Shehata (2): > > lnet: restrict gateway selection > > lnet: use the same src nid for discovery > > > > Andreas Dilger (5): > > lustre: llite: verify truncated xattr is handled > > lustre: obd: fix printing of client connection UUID > > lustre: llite: restore ll_dcompare() > > lustre: ldlm: use proper units for timeouts > > lustre: lmv: do not print MDTs that are inactive > > > > Andriy Skulysh (1): > > lustre: ptlrpc: connect to MDT stucks > > > > Bobi Jam (2): > > lustre: lov: lov_io_sub_init()) ASSERTION > > lustre: llite: do not flush COW pages from mapping > > > > Chris Horn (2): > > lnet: Introduce constant for the lolnd NID > > lnet: Add MD options for response tracking > > > > James Simmons (2): > > lustre: cleanups and bug fixes > > lnet: stop using struct timeval > > > > Lai Siyao (3): > > lustre: uapi: add OBD_CONNECT2_FIDMAP > > lustre: dne: support directory restripe > > lustre: dne: improve temp file name check > > > > Mr NeilBrown (13): > > lnet: merge lnet_md_alloc into lnet_md_build. > > lnet: always put a page list into struct lnet_libmd > > lnet: discard kvec option from lnet_libmd. > > lnet: remove msg_iov from lnet_msg. > > lnet: o2iblnd: discard kiblnd_setup_rd_iov > > lustre: Remove inappropriate uses of BIT() macro. > > lnet: libcfs: use BIT() macro where appropriate > > lustre: llite: clean up pcc_layout_wait() > > lustre: misc: declare static chars as const where possible. > > lnet: use kmem_cache_zalloc as appropriate. > > lnet: remove lnet_extract_iov() > > lnet: simplify ksock_tx. > > lnet: socklnd: discard tx_iov. > > > > NeilBrown (2): > > lustre: fid: revert seq_client_rpc patch. > > lustre: fld: convert cache_flush file to LPROC_SEQ_FOPS > > > > Oleg Drokin (3): > > lustre: ptlrpc: return proper write count from ping_store > > lustre: osc: Do not wait for grants for too long > > lustre: osc: Ensure immediate departure of sync write pages > > > > Qian Yingjin (1): > > lustre: Send file creation time to clients > > > > Sebastien Buisson (2): > > lustre: sec: check permissions for changelogs access > > lustre: mgc: protect from NULL exp in mgc_enqueue() > > > > Sergey Cheremencev (1): > > lustre: quota: quota pools for OSTs > > > > Shaun Tancheff (1): > > lustre: all: Cleanup LASSERTF uses missing newlines > > > > Swapnil Pimpale (1): > > lustre: fallocate: Implement fallocate preallocate operation > > > > Wang Shilong (3): > > lustre: llite: fix to make jobstats work for async ra > > lustre: llite: fix possible divide zero in ll_use_fast_io() > > lustre: llite: check if page truncated in ll_write_begin() > > > > fs/lustre/fid/fid_request.c | 12 +-- > > fs/lustre/fld/fld_cache.c | 40 -------- > > fs/lustre/fld/fld_internal.h | 7 -- > > fs/lustre/fld/lproc_fld.c | 31 +++--- > > fs/lustre/include/cl_object.h | 44 ++++++++- > > fs/lustre/include/lu_object.h | 16 +-- > > fs/lustre/include/lustre_dlm.h | 17 ++-- > > fs/lustre/include/lustre_import.h | 4 +- > > fs/lustre/include/lustre_lmv.h | 94 ++++++++++++++++-- > > fs/lustre/include/lustre_req_layout.h | 3 + > > fs/lustre/include/lustre_swab.h | 2 +- > > fs/lustre/include/obd_support.h | 5 +- > > fs/lustre/include/obd_target.h | 54 ++++++++++ > > fs/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_lockd.c | 3 +- > > fs/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_request.c | 1 + > > fs/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_resource.c | 11 ++- > > fs/lustre/llite/dcache.c | 56 ++++++++--- > > fs/lustre/llite/dir.c | 33 +++++-- > > fs/lustre/llite/file.c | 84 +++++++++++++++- > > fs/lustre/llite/lcommon_cl.c | 2 + > > fs/lustre/llite/llite_internal.h | 6 +- > > fs/lustre/llite/llite_lib.c | 6 +- > > fs/lustre/llite/llite_mmap.c | 2 +- > > fs/lustre/llite/lproc_llite.c | 19 ++-- > > fs/lustre/llite/namei.c | 5 +- > > fs/lustre/llite/pcc.c | 17 ++-- > > fs/lustre/llite/rw.c | 13 ++- > > fs/lustre/llite/rw26.c | 16 ++- > > fs/lustre/llite/statahead.c | 2 +- > > fs/lustre/llite/vvp_io.c | 19 ++-- > > fs/lustre/llite/vvp_object.c | 2 +- > > fs/lustre/llite/xattr.c | 15 ++- > > fs/lustre/lmv/lmv_obd.c | 66 +++++++++---- > > fs/lustre/lov/lov_cl_internal.h | 6 +- > > fs/lustre/lov/lov_io.c | 31 ++++-- > > fs/lustre/mdc/mdc_changelog.c | 1 + > > fs/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c | 41 +++++--- > > fs/lustre/mgc/mgc_request.c | 11 ++- > > fs/lustre/obdclass/cl_page.c | 1 - > > fs/lustre/obdclass/class_obd.c | 35 +++---- > > fs/lustre/obdclass/llog.c | 9 +- > > fs/lustre/obdclass/llog_cat.c | 3 +- > > fs/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c | 8 +- > > fs/lustre/obdclass/obd_mount.c | 2 +- > > fs/lustre/osc/osc_cache.c | 33 ++++++- > > fs/lustre/osc/osc_internal.h | 3 + > > fs/lustre/osc/osc_io.c | 56 +++++++++-- > > fs/lustre/osc/osc_request.c | 70 ++++++++++++- > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/client.c | 2 +- > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/events.c | 2 +- > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/import.c | 4 +- > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 26 ++++- > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/llog_client.c | 4 + > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/lproc_ptlrpc.c | 4 +- > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c | 16 ++- > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpc_internal.h | 19 ++++ > > fs/lustre/ptlrpc/wiretest.c | 16 ++- > > include/linux/lnet/lib-lnet.h | 56 +---------- > > include/linux/lnet/lib-types.h | 15 +-- > > include/uapi/linux/lnet/lnet-types.h | 11 +++ > > include/uapi/linux/lnet/lnetst.h | 8 +- > > include/uapi/linux/lustre/lustre_idl.h | 28 ++++-- > > include/uapi/linux/lustre/lustre_user.h | 51 +++++++++- > > net/lnet/klnds/o2iblnd/o2iblnd_cb.c | 122 +++-------------------- > > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd.h | 16 +-- > > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_cb.c | 68 +++++-------- > > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c | 32 +++--- > > net/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_proto.c | 10 +- > > net/lnet/libcfs/debug.c | 2 +- > > net/lnet/libcfs/libcfs_string.c | 4 +- > > net/lnet/libcfs/module.c | 17 ++-- > > net/lnet/lnet/api-ni.c | 16 +-- > > net/lnet/lnet/config.c | 16 +-- > > net/lnet/lnet/lib-md.c | 168 ++++++++++++++++---------------- > > net/lnet/lnet/lib-me.c | 2 +- > > net/lnet/lnet/lib-move.c | 167 ++++++++++++++----------------- > > net/lnet/lnet/lib-msg.c | 5 +- > > net/lnet/lnet/lib-socket.c | 34 ++----- > > net/lnet/lnet/lo.c | 17 +--- > > net/lnet/lnet/peer.c | 17 +++- > > net/lnet/lnet/router.c | 2 +- > > net/lnet/selftest/conctl.c | 1 - > > net/lnet/selftest/conrpc.c | 6 +- > > net/lnet/selftest/conrpc.h | 1 - > > net/lnet/selftest/console.h | 1 - > > 85 files changed, 1201 insertions(+), 802 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 fs/lustre/include/obd_target.h > > > > -- > > 1.8.3.1 >
On Mon, Jun 01 2020, James Simmons wrote: >> > Merge the client side patches that landed to the OpenSFS >> > tree since Apirl 30 to today. Include a fid missing patches >> > as well and one patch to fix issues with 2 patches from the >> > earlier 600+ patch set. Please review to ensure their correctness. >> >> Hi James, >> I tried applying these and hit lots of conflicts. >> What tree are they on top of? > > This is based off the top of my tree. Currently I'm using my tree as the > OpenSFS version of the Linux client so I only add things that land. Your > tree is more the development / prototype tree since it has not yet landed > things. So most likely its the LNet LU-13004 work that is conflicting. > I also run the patches by checkpatch which has the LNET comment change > that wasn't in the OpenSFS branch until just recently; OpenSFS commit > d3f1ceeb123da9603cd5ee3acbd4ee638a995f10. That should reduce the conflicts > going forward. We are getting to the point in which both our trees are > almost in sync ;-) I don't think it makes any sense to maintain two separate trees like this. Would you like to just keep maintaining your tree, and I'll stop with mine? If so, is your git tree published somewhere? Thanks, NeilBrown
Le 23/06/2020 06:11, « lustre-devel au nom de NeilBrown » <lustre-devel-bounces@lists.lustre.org au nom de neilb@suse.de> a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 01 2020, James Simmons wrote:
>> > Merge the client side patches that landed to the OpenSFS
>> > tree since Apirl 30 to today. Include a fid missing patches
>> > as well and one patch to fix issues with 2 patches from the
>> > earlier 600+ patch set. Please review to ensure their correctness.
>>
>> Hi James,
>> I tried applying these and hit lots of conflicts.
>> What tree are they on top of?
>
> This is based off the top of my tree. Currently I'm using my tree as the
> OpenSFS version of the Linux client so I only add things that land. Your
> tree is more the development / prototype tree since it has not yet landed
> things. So most likely its the LNet LU-13004 work that is conflicting.
> I also run the patches by checkpatch which has the LNET comment change
> that wasn't in the OpenSFS branch until just recently; OpenSFS commit
> d3f1ceeb123da9603cd5ee3acbd4ee638a995f10. That should reduce the conflicts
> going forward. We are getting to the point in which both our trees are
> almost in sync ;-)
I don't think it makes any sense to maintain two separate trees like
this.
Would you like to just keep maintaining your tree, and I'll stop with
mine?
If so, is your git tree published somewhere?
By the way, where's your tree available Neil? I'm checking your github account but not sure this is there.
Aurélien
On Tue, Jun 23 2020, Degremont, Aurelien wrote: > Le 23/06/2020 06:11, « lustre-devel au nom de NeilBrown » <lustre-devel-bounces@lists.lustre.org au nom de neilb@suse.de> a écrit : > > On Mon, Jun 01 2020, James Simmons wrote: > > >> > Merge the client side patches that landed to the OpenSFS > >> > tree since Apirl 30 to today. Include a fid missing patches > >> > as well and one patch to fix issues with 2 patches from the > >> > earlier 600+ patch set. Please review to ensure their correctness. > >> > >> Hi James, > >> I tried applying these and hit lots of conflicts. > >> What tree are they on top of? > > > > This is based off the top of my tree. Currently I'm using my tree as the > > OpenSFS version of the Linux client so I only add things that land. Your > > tree is more the development / prototype tree since it has not yet landed > > things. So most likely its the LNet LU-13004 work that is conflicting. > > I also run the patches by checkpatch which has the LNET comment change > > that wasn't in the OpenSFS branch until just recently; OpenSFS commit > > d3f1ceeb123da9603cd5ee3acbd4ee638a995f10. That should reduce the conflicts > > going forward. We are getting to the point in which both our trees are > > almost in sync ;-) > > I don't think it makes any sense to maintain two separate trees like > this. > > Would you like to just keep maintaining your tree, and I'll stop with > mine? > > If so, is your git tree published somewhere? > > > By the way, where's your tree available Neil? I'm checking your github account but not sure this is there. > In the "linux" repo I have quite a few branches. "lustre/lustre" is the latest lustre code (as of late april). https://github.com/neilbrown/linux/tree/lustre/lustre NeilBrown > > Aurélien
> On Mon, Jun 01 2020, James Simmons wrote: > > >> > Merge the client side patches that landed to the OpenSFS > >> > tree since Apirl 30 to today. Include a fid missing patches > >> > as well and one patch to fix issues with 2 patches from the > >> > earlier 600+ patch set. Please review to ensure their correctness. > >> > >> Hi James, > >> I tried applying these and hit lots of conflicts. > >> What tree are they on top of? > > > > This is based off the top of my tree. Currently I'm using my tree as the > > OpenSFS version of the Linux client so I only add things that land. Your > > tree is more the development / prototype tree since it has not yet landed > > things. So most likely its the LNet LU-13004 work that is conflicting. > > I also run the patches by checkpatch which has the LNET comment change > > that wasn't in the OpenSFS branch until just recently; OpenSFS commit > > d3f1ceeb123da9603cd5ee3acbd4ee638a995f10. That should reduce the conflicts > > going forward. We are getting to the point in which both our trees are > > almost in sync ;-) > > I don't think it makes any sense to maintain two separate trees like > this. > > Would you like to just keep maintaining your tree, and I'll stop with > mine? > > If so, is your git tree published somewhere? At this point its okay to have two separate trees since our trees have two different purposes. Mind you I do plan to retire my tree in the near future for your tree. My tree: https://github.com/jasimmons1973/lustre is a 1 to 1 OpenSFS port to the Linux client. Your tree has new prototype work; most has landed to the OpenSFS tree; which in turn ends up in my tree. Work is still outstanding in your tree that needs to be properly vetted and merged. Also I have noticed the work in your tree that has landed to OpenSFS is different. Sometimes the OpenSFS branch has improvements missing from the Linux client prototype patch and some times the reverse is true. So those issues need to be sorted out as well. Your tree is needed to work out these last bits. Once done a sweep will need to be done on your tree to patch everything up.
On Wed, Jun 24 2020, James Simmons wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 01 2020, James Simmons wrote: >> >> >> > Merge the client side patches that landed to the OpenSFS >> >> > tree since Apirl 30 to today. Include a fid missing patches >> >> > as well and one patch to fix issues with 2 patches from the >> >> > earlier 600+ patch set. Please review to ensure their correctness. >> >> >> >> Hi James, >> >> I tried applying these and hit lots of conflicts. >> >> What tree are they on top of? >> > >> > This is based off the top of my tree. Currently I'm using my tree as the >> > OpenSFS version of the Linux client so I only add things that land. Your >> > tree is more the development / prototype tree since it has not yet landed >> > things. So most likely its the LNet LU-13004 work that is conflicting. >> > I also run the patches by checkpatch which has the LNET comment change >> > that wasn't in the OpenSFS branch until just recently; OpenSFS commit >> > d3f1ceeb123da9603cd5ee3acbd4ee638a995f10. That should reduce the conflicts >> > going forward. We are getting to the point in which both our trees are >> > almost in sync ;-) >> >> I don't think it makes any sense to maintain two separate trees like >> this. >> >> Would you like to just keep maintaining your tree, and I'll stop with >> mine? >> >> If so, is your git tree published somewhere? > > At this point its okay to have two separate trees since our trees have > two different purposes. Mind you I do plan to retire my tree in the > near future for your tree. My tree: > > https://github.com/jasimmons1973/lustre Thanks. > > is a 1 to 1 OpenSFS port to the Linux client. Your tree has new prototype > work; most has landed to the OpenSFS tree; which in turn ends up in my > tree. Work is still outstanding in your tree that needs to be properly > vetted and merged. Also I have noticed the work in your tree that has > landed to OpenSFS is different. Sometimes the OpenSFS branch has > improvements missing from the Linux client prototype patch and some times > the reverse is true. So those issues need to be sorted out as well. Your > tree is needed to work out these last bits. Once done a sweep will need > to be done on your tree to patch everything up. Maybe... I'm beginning to wonder it might be best to base our eventual submission the Linux on the OpenSFS master branch. i.e. get it to a state where we can write a tool that collects all the code needed for the client and places it in the linux tree at the appropriate place. Then we submit that as a series of commits. The big value proposition here is that the code we submit is demonstrable close to the code that we test. I don't know ... maybe maintaining the parallel tree is a good idea. I'm just not as sure as I once was. The testing is really a big deal. NeilBrown
On Wed, Jun 24 2020, NeilBrown wrote: >> >> By the way, where's your tree available Neil? I'm checking your github account but not sure this is there. >> > > In the "linux" repo I have quite a few branches. > "lustre/lustre" is the latest lustre code (as of late april). > > https://github.com/neilbrown/linux/tree/lustre/lustre Just FYI, I've updated this to Linux 5.7 and *almost* current master. There is one patch which causes all my testing to fail, so I've postponed that one until I understand the problem. NeilBrown