[lustre-devel] [PATCH 00/10] lustre: libcfs: fix libcfs debugfs bugs

NeilBrown neilb at suse.com
Tue Jul 3 19:17:06 PDT 2018


On Mon, Jul 02 2018, James Simmons wrote:

> The original port to sysfs / debugfs was done in haste without any
> testing so many bugs were introduced. This patch set resolves the
> bugs found in the libcfs code when it was reviewed.
>
> James Simmons (10):
>   lustre: libcfs: rename lustre_*_debugfs to lnet_*_debugfs
>   lustre: libcfs: rename *_debugmb to *_debug_mb
>   lustre: libcfs: make lnet_debugfs_symlink_def fields const
>   lustre: libcfs: fix module loading and sysfs setting race
>   lustre: libcfs: fix wrong debugfs symlink name
>   lustre: libcfs: don't assume sysfs mount point
>   lustre: libcfs: properly initialize lnet_debugfs_symlink_def
>   lustre: libcfs: test if table is NULL for lnet_insert_debugfs
>   lustre: libcfs: return ssize_t for lnet_debugfs_*
>   lustre: libcfs: small cleanups for debugfs code
>
>  .../staging/lustre/include/linux/libcfs/libcfs.h   |  2 +-
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/debug.c         | 28 ++++----
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/module.c        | 78 +++++++++++-----------
>  drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/lnet/router_proc.c     |  2 +-
>  4 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
>
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1

These all look good to me, so I've (provisionally) applied them.
I didn't know about kernel_param_lock() before. I wonder if it
would make sense to use that to protect updates to sbi->ll_flags???

Thanks,
NeilBrown
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20180704/9f21b8eb/attachment.sig>


More information about the lustre-devel mailing list