[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