[lustre-devel] An alternate approach to preparing lustre for upstream submission
neilb at suse.de
Sun Jan 3 21:32:34 PST 2021
thanks for your thorough review.
LU-14291 - Improve use of HAVE_SERVER_SUPPORT and others for
LU-14290 - Convert fault-injection framework to match the model using
LU-14289 - Restrict libcfs to compatibility code only
LU-14288 - Enhance nodemap ranges to work better with IPv6
With respect to CDEBUG(), while no-one else may have stated a
requirement to remove CDEBUG() for upstream submission, it is something
that I personally feel strongly about.
It isn't CDEBUG itself that is the problem, it is the back-end code for
gathering the logs and writing them out. I wouldn't feel comfortable
submitting that code upstream. This is the ring-buffer code that you
While tracepoint are often quite verbose code-wise as you suggest, I
don't think they have to be. I think (without actually having tried
it) that trace_printk() can be used to crate an alternate CDEBUG()
macro, so that all the CDEBUG() calls can be left unchanged.
Converting some or all of these to more traditional tracepoints could
be done later as the need or desire arose. I will see if I can make
this work in due course.
I'm looking forward to the 2.14.0 release :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 853 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the lustre-devel