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

Brian J. Murrell brian.murrell at linux.intel.com
Tue Dec 18 14:12:27 PST 2012

On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 23:12 -0500, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> There's a HUGE
> difference in practice between "feature X appears in Linux kernel
> version Y" and "My RedHat release Z has a particular feature".  That's
> where life gets complicated.  Many times we're stuck on a particular
> kernel for various complicated reasons, yet we need to upgrade Lustre
> ... or vice versa.  It's kind of like Infiniband in the Linux kernel ...
> at best, it doesn't hurt us, but it's always the "wrong" version (or so
> my Infiniband guys tell me).  We never end up using the Infiniband in
> the kernel, and sometimes (depending on the vagarities of the distro)
> that screws us up hard; part of that is because for a long time one
> particular distro never would distribute the development symbols for
> the Infiniband in the kernel that matched what the kernel was running.
> That won't be an issue with Lustre, but you get the idea.

So let me just confirm I understand your issue here.  For example, the
Linux kernel is at 3.12.1 (version numbers are purely hypothetical and
far into the future) which has Lustre 2.6.3 in it.  But RHEL 9's kernel
is only 3.8.1"ish" and has Lustre 2.4.2 (because that's what was in the
upstream Linux 3.8.1 kernel) in it.

The complaint is that the Lustre (2.4.2) that's in the RHEL 9 kernel
that you are using is too old for some reason?

So what's the remedy?  You can either (a) download the stand-alone
Lustre module source for the version of Lustre you need and build it
against the RHEL 9 kernel you want to use (assuming they are near enough
to be compatible -- which is the same situation that exists today) or
(b) you download the entire upstream kernel that has the version of
Lustre that you want to use and build that.

It seems to me that (a) is what everyone already has to do all of the
time today anyway (assuming the binary RPM that we ship for the given
vendor kernel is not new enough) and (b) just isn't even possible so
that's gravy.

There might be something obvious that I'm missing, but I'm failing to
see how having Lustre (client) in the kernel is any worse than the
status quo (basically scenario (a) above) and indeed should provide
Lustre compatibility to the current stable Linux sooner than we can
typically turn it around.  


More information about the lustre-devel mailing list