[lustre-devel] [PATCH 000/622] lustre: sync closely to 2.13.52
neilb at suse.de
Tue Apr 28 20:32:31 PDT 2020
On Tue, Apr 28 2020, James Simmons wrote:
>> > These patches need to be applied to the lustre-backport branch
>> > starting at commit a436653f641e4b3e2841f38113620535e918dd3f.
>> Hi James et al,
>> I applied these patches on top of a43.... then added the other patches I
>> had an looked for difference to my previous tree.
>> I found a bunch of improvements you had made, plus some errors that
>> came through your patches, plus some other problems that already
>> I've then added patches from OpenSFS master to get uptodate.
>> The result is not on my github tree in the lustre/lustre branch. It
>> has 226 patches on top of the set you posted.
>> git log 823691f8d49c~3..823691f8d49c
>> will show you some error I fixed, in case you are interested.
> I grabbed those fixes and applied them to my tree. Its nice to see my
> tree, your tree, and the OpenSFS branch starting to merge. I updated
> my tree to the same OpenSFS commit as your tree and have started to look
> at difference. I noticed the sync with my tree didn't exactly match up.
> You lost a few changes. Some of the major changes missing are
> 1) LU-9679 llite: Discard LUSTRE_FPRIVATE()
> OpenSFS hash : 9e5cb57addbb5d7bc1596096821ad8dcac7a939b
Thanks. I've also added
2bea4a7a3706 LU-5432 fld: don't loop forever on bogus FID sequences
2f66b4903516 LU-7768 fld: Do not retry fld request
8d4ef45e0780 LU-7524 fld: fld_clientlookup retries next target
which I had found by comparison myself but not applied yet.
> 2) LU-13274 uapi: make lnet UAPI headers C99 compliant
> OpenSFS hash: 742897a967cff5be53c447d14b17ae405c2b31f2
I have that...
Commit 619f523e5c36 ("lustre: uapi: make lnet UAPI headers C99 compliant")
What did I miss?
> Also their are some kmem_cache bugs that causes several of the sanity
> test to crash the client. I need to do more comparing of our tree and
> sort out the changes that haven't landed or been pushed to the OpenSFS
> branch to figure out these regressions. I can easily see in the 4 to 8
> weeks all the patches in your tree to land to OpenSFS as well as my tree.
> So we could sort everything out once everything has landed. I need to
> pull a few changes you have as well to my tree for cleanups like for the
> fid layer that seem to have gotten lost. Mostly likely from people doing
> cleanups while in staging.
> Now for some important info. I noticed sanity test failing recently
> which I tracked down to me not updating my lustre utilities. This is
> going to be a problem so to make it painless I created a few patches
> to enable building the lustre utilies only against the linux
> client. If you apply the following patches:
LU-12511 build: don't use OpenSFS UAPI headers with --disable-modules
doesn't seem like a good thing. It implies that the UAPI headers in
OpenSFS give different results than the ones in Linux.
If this is true - we need to fix it. The UAPI needs to be stable.
Do you know what the important differences are.
> Now for 33603 patch it exposes a regression with LSOM and
> open_by_handle_at(). This patch removes the need for dot_lustre which is
> broken anyways for submounts (filesets). The 'dot_lustre' in the UAPI
> header is used for general utilites as well as the kernel server code.
> Since it had no use in the linux client it was nuked :-) Instead of
> restoring it we can resolve the LSOM issues for 33603 patch.
> Once you apply the above patches just run:
> sh autogen.sh
> ./configure --disable-modules --disable-server
> make rpms
> and you will have proper rpms to use with the linux client. I recommend
> after updating the linux client to update your utilities as well
Thanks from the thorough response. I'll keep this in mind when I next
refresh my linux test setup.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the lustre-devel