For a very long time there was ptlctl, which was an lnet-specific (portals) subset of the
lctl commands. I don't recall off hand if this still exists anymore, or if it was
removed in the last release because nobody used it.
As for /proc interface handling, that could be moved into libcfs/utils for LNet and then
used by lustre tools. Since we are also looking to move from /proc to /sys tunables, and
the handling of these parameters may take significant changes in the code, it would
probably be a good time to rewrite it and put it under an LGPL license at the same time.
On Nov 24, 2014, at 11:55, James Simmons
Currently there are some challenges to this. First for LNet we have lnetctl and lctl for
configuring the network. The nice thing about lnetctl it is light weight with no need of
liblustreapi. This is not the case for lctl. So if you wanted a LNET only rpm it would
only have to support lnetctl. Lastly setting LNet parameters via procfs/sysfs is handled
only with lctl which again introduces the liblustreapi dependency. That I hope to resolve
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Nathan Rutman
What does the community think about splitting the LNET build out of Lustre as a separate
set of (source and binary) RPMs?
This would make it easier/faster to build, install, and upgrade Lustre in existing
installations without changing things we don't need to. It would also make it easier
to re-use LNET in other projects, and make it easier for unusual users to maintain a
I have no idea how this might affect landing in mainstream kernel.
Thoughts / opinions?
Nathan Rutman · Principal Systems Architect
Seagate Technology · +1 503 877-9507<tel:%2B1%20503%20877-9507> · PST
lwg mailing list
HPDD-discuss mailing list