On Thursday 24 September 2015 19:03:12 Drokin, Oleg wrote:
On Sep 24, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 24 September 2015 16:01:40 Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Thursday 24 September 2015 03:55:20 Drokin, Oleg wrote:
>>>> On Sep 23, 2015, at 3:13 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> This is only true on the servers so we can replace it with a corresponding
>> I imagine.
> Ok, I see. This wasn't clear as I really know nothing about what lustre
> actually does. Just for my information, can you clarify where the server
> code sits? Is that a fork of the same code base running in user space,
> or is there another set of kernel modules on top of the common ones that
> implements the server?
Lustre server (and out of tree client) live in
Code in the staging tree is a snapshot from between 2.4 and 2.5 releases
that undergoes cleanups in order to conform to kernel standards.
It's only client too, so all server-side parts are being removed as they are
Ok, I see.
>> I have not finished a detailed runthrough yet, but on the
surface, why did you remove
>> suppress_pings parameter 0 that is still valid on clients, to let them not ping
>> Also ptlrpc_ping_import_soon and friends - all that code is actually needed.
>> Only "ping evictor" is not needed on the client as it's only
servers that are going to
>> kick out clients that are silent for too long. Clients are still expected to
>> send their "keep alive" pings in periodically (unless suppress_pings
option is enabled).
>> Hm…. I now see it is not fully implemented, that's why you are removing it
as it's really not
>> called from anywhere.
> Right, I obviously cannot tell the difference between code that is not needed
> on the client or that has been orphaned in a previous cleanup and code that
> has just been added in order to soon be used.
This code is not "soon to be used", so it's ok to kill it now and we can
spring it back to life when it actually becomes useful.
>> Anyway this does remove a lot of stuff that we don't
really need in the client,
>> I'll try to get it built and tested just to make sure it does not really
>> (unfortunately it does not seem to apply cleanly to the tip of staging-next
> Ok. I based the patches on top of my 37 patch series, and if you want I can
> upload a git branch somewhere to make rebasing easier.
That would be great.
Though in the end likely this huge patch would need to be split into smaller chunks.
Like if all unused llog code removal is done, that would allow subsequent dt_object.[ch]
removal and so on.
But for testing a current snapshot would be great, then I can run it through my testbed
to see how it fares there.
Ok, I've pushed out the branch to
This contains the latest version of the y2038 series (with the warning fixed
that Sudip Mukherjee found) but no other changes, and the big code removal