[Lustre-discuss] [wc-discuss] Re: Lustre and cross-platform portability
tao.peng at emc.com
tao.peng at emc.com
Thu Apr 26 19:23:52 PDT 2012
Thank you very much for bringing it up in LUG and getting all these positive support from community.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Dilger [mailto:aedilger at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 7:48 AM
> To: wc-discuss
> Cc: Lustre Devel; lustre-discuss discuss
> Subject: [wc-discuss] Re: Lustre and cross-platform portability
> To revive this thread, based on discussion at the LUG TWG:
> - there was general consensus that cleaning up the Lustre client
> (and server) code was very desirable to do
> - migrating libcfs to emulate the Linux kernel APIs is also usable.
> Ken mentioned that there is relatively little conflict between
> the Linux kernel and the MacOS kernel, and the same for WinNT, so
> they could use the same function names as Linux without problems.
I created LU-1346 (http://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1346) to track libcfs cleanup work.
> - there was no objection to converting the Lustre code from spaces
> to tabs. My proposal was that build/checkpatch.pl could require
> tabs immediately, and new patches should be submitted with tabs
> on all new/modified lines (and optionally all lines on small
> functions to avoid messy formatting). This will avoid issues
> with current patches in flight, and also avoid "git annotate"
> showing the jumbo replace-all-spaces-with-tabs patch for every
> line in Lustre, and I think a good fraction of lines will be
> updated in the next 9-12 months or more. As we approach the
> actual time for upstream kernel submission is close, then we can
> make a final effort to clean up remaining lines in idle code
> (which will also be unlikely to conflict with existing work).
While tabs are the main coding style difference between Lustre and kernel, there are a few minor change that is needed as well. I think we need to do following to match kernel coding style:
1. Lustre uses expandtab while kernel requires tabs
2. Lustre has vim syntax rules in most source files, which need to be removed
3. Lustre uses a slightly different comment style, which need to be changed to kernel style
I created LU-1347 (http://jira.whamcloud.com/browse/LU-1347) to track the coding style changes.
> There is some hope that the kernel maintainers will not require
> all of the Lustre macros to be removed, but we can deal with this
> on a case-by-case basis.
IMO, we can divide macros to three groups (or more?):
1. Old kernel support macros, kernel maintainers are clear that they won't accept it.
2. For macros to mark out server code, kernel maintainers can accept it. But I think we need to make sure we don't do it too intrusive.
3. Lustre feature macros, we can convert them to Kconfig macros.
> Cheers, Andreas
> On 2012-03-14, at 7:31 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Whamcloud and EMC are jointly investigating how to be able to contribute the Lustre client code into
> the upstream Linux kernel.
> > As a prerequisite to this, EMC is working to clean up the Lustre client code to better match the
> kernel coding style, and one of the anticipated major obstacles to upstream kernel submission is the
> heavy use of code abstraction via libcfs for portability to other operating systems (most notably
> MacOS and WinNT, but also for liblustre, and potentially *BSD).
> > I have no information that the WinNT project will ever be released by Oracle,
> [revised] and the MacOS client needs significant work to update it to the latest version of Lustre,
> and to get it landed into the Lustre repo,
> > so the libcfs portability layer is potentially exacting a high cost in code maintenance and
> complexity (CLIO being a prime example) for no apparent benefit. Similarly, the liblustre client
> needs a portability layer for userspace, and suffers from the same apparent lack of interest or users.
> > I'd like to get some feedback from the Lustre community about removing the libcfs abstraction
> entirely, or possibly restructuring it to look like the Linux kernel API, and having the other
> platforms code against it as a Linux portability layer, like ZFS on Linux uses the Solaris Portability
> Layer (SPL) to avoid changing the core ZFS code. A related topic is whether it would be better to
> replace all cfs_* functions with standard Linux kernel functions en-masse, or migrate away from cfs_*
> functions slowly?
> > Also, we're planning on deprecating the liblustre client code, due to lack of interest/usage. The
> current code is in disrepair, and we've been keeping it around for years without any benefit, and
> while I was one of the strongest advocates for keeping it in our back pocket in case of future needs,
> I don't see that materializing in the future.
> > The liblustre code would be left in the tree for now, in case someone from the community is
> interested to get it working and maintain it, and it may be updated on a best effort basis. If nobody
> steps forward to do this work, the liblustre code would be deleted from the development branch in a
> year or so.
> > Unfortunately, after starting this thread, I may not be able to reply to questions in a timely
> manner due to vacation. I look forward to a thread that concludes with unanimous agreement from all
> parties. :-)
> > Cheers, Andreas
> > --
> > Andreas Dilger Whamcloud, Inc.
> > Principal Lustre Engineer http://www.whamcloud.com/
> Cheers, Andreas
More information about the lustre-discuss