Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Ben Evans <bevans@cray.com>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>, James Simmons <jsimmons@infradead.org>
CC:     Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lustre Development List <lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org>
Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 10/11] staging: lustre: move ldlm into
 ptlrpc
Thread-Topic: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 10/11] staging: lustre: move ldlm into
 ptlrpc
Thread-Index: AQHT/aQqQ8mBFCFbe0qoj06MBZYRRKRUjnB3gABL/IA=
Date:   Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:21:42 +0000
Message-ID: <D73EEFA7.FCA6%jevans@cray.com>
References: <152826510267.16761.14361003167157833896.stgit@noble>
 <152826511923.16761.9237280635711887801.stgit@noble>
 <alpine.LFD.2.21.1806070546210.23188@casper.infradead.org>
 <87sh5zlyf4.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
In-Reply-To: <87sh5zlyf4.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <796DC05CE3B55F43BEC0B9C653CC617F@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 54287903-fc78-47b1-8387-08d5cca38513
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 07 Jun 2018 18:21:42.6239
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e7b8488a-c0cd-4614-aae1-996bfabec247
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5SPR00MB239
X-OriginatorOrg: cray.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 6/7/18, 5:48 AM, "lustre-devel on behalf of NeilBrown"
<lustre-devel-bounces@lists.lustre.org on behalf of neilb@suse.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 07 2018, James Simmons wrote:
>
>>> The ldlm code is built into the ptlrpc module, yet it lived in a
>>> separate directory.  This requires filename editing in the Makefile
>>> and make it difficult to e.g. build the .s file for code in ldlm.
>>>=20
>>> All the ldlm files have distinctive names so confusion from having
>>> ptlrpc and ldlm in the same directory is unlikely.  So move them all
>>> into ptlrpc.
>>
>> Nak. The reason is it would be nice to keep the directory structure.
>> What really needs to be done and Oleg has looked into it is to reduced
>> the number of modules created down to two, one for LNet and the other
>> lustre.ko. This also is a step in the right direction to remove the
>> create struct obd_ops and struct md_ops pointer madness. Well their
>> is the issue with obd echo client but we can deal with this at a later
>> date. Also the number of EXPORT_SYMBOLS and things will greatly reduce.
>
>Yeah, you are probably right.
>I had a bit of a look at how to build everything into a
>single module.  You can do with by having a single make
>file that lists parts from other directories - the same way
>that ptlrpc includes files from ldlm - but that is rather ugly.
>
>I've very nearly got it working using the lib-y infrastructure.
>I can build lnet as a single module, but the dependency calc isn't
>quite right so things happen in the wrong order.  The build
>fails the first time because some files don't exist, then
>succeeds on the second run.
>Hopefully I'll figure out how to make it work tomorrow.
>
>Thanks for the review,
>NeilBrown

Would this be client-only, or could the server code be added as well with
an ldiskfs/zfs module?