[Lustre-devel] [wc-discuss] Important changes to libcfs primitives usage.

[Liu, Xuezhao]

"Nice idea, what about conflicts with names between linux and freebsd?
both have a atomic but with different arguments atomic_set, atomic_add as example."

For atomic_xxx in freebsd, we may refer the ofed solution. It defines atomic operations in "sys/ofed/include/asm/atomic.h".
For ofed, there are also some other header files to provide similar semantics of linux primitives.

"did you research before make that patch to be sure no conflicts exist?"

I made those initial cleanup patches, I did worry the possible conflicts as you said.
But I think the hard-to-resolve confliction cases should be very rare, we can deal with it case by case(the possible spin_lock_free for example as previous email).

Thanks,
Xuezhao

On Dec 17, 2012, at 22:34, Andreas Dilger wrote:

> On 2012-12-17, at 10:09 AM, John Hammond wrote:
>> On 12/05/2012 07:54 AM, Oleg Drokin wrote:
>>>   I just landed first patch of the series to reduce usage of our libcfs_ wrappers for kernel primitives like libcfs_spin_lock/unlock...
>>>   You can see actual change here: 
>>> http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,2829
>>> 
>>>   It's highly likely that plenty of patches will be affected. To make our job easier, there is a
>>>   build/libcfs_cleanup.sed script included, you can run it on all your .c and .h files to make necessary replacements:
>>>   sed -i -f build/libcfs_cleanup.sed3  `find . -name "*.h" -or -name 
>>> "*.c"`
>>> 
>>>   Please be also advised that there are more changes like this are coming (timeline is not very clear ATM, we might be able to wait with the rest until
>>>   after feature freeze) and the sed script will be updated accordingly.
>> 
>> I have been wondering about wrappers and typedefs not affected by this change, for example cfs_get_cpu(), cfs_atomic_read() and cfs_proc_dir_entry_t.  In new code and patches should we use the cfs names or their Linux equivalents, get_cpu(), atomic_read(), and struct proc_dir_entry?
> 
> Ideally, new patches would use the Linux primitives.  However, if they are in client-side code that is compiled for liblustre, then the liblustre builds would fail until the wrappers are renamed to their Linux equivalents (i.e. removing "cfs_" prefix).
> 
> For server-side code and/or llite it should be fine to use the native Linux functions.
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger                       Whamcloud, Inc.
> Principal Lustre Engineer            http://www.whamcloud.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 

----------------------------------------------
Alexey Lyahkov
alexey_lyashkov at xyratex.com


_______________________________________________
Lustre-devel mailing list
Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel