From: Eric Barton <eeb@sun.com>
To: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org
Subject: [Lustre-devel] moving obd_fail_check to libcfs
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:39:51 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <010b01c995ff$43083420$c9189c60$@com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56B06EF4-AAF5-448C-96C0-55E5E9A1AA44@sun.com>
Although I could agree that there should be levels of abstraction
above libcfs, it is, de facto, the place we put _all_ generic code
- not just stateless porting primitives, but everything that can be
used everywhere.
I don't actually think of obd_fail_check as inexorably bound with
/proc. But since that's the current implementation, it's probably
my oversight not to have shared that sense of direction.
Nic, is the patch totally /proc - centric? Wangdi is doing the work
to remove /proc-ness and make our tuneables, configurables and monitoring
more portable. He needs to be involved...
Cheers,
Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org [mailto:lustre-devel-bounces at lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of Robert Read
> Sent: 23 February 2009 11:11 AM
> To: Nic Henke
> Cc: lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> Subject: Re: [Lustre-devel] moving obd_fail_check to libcfs
>
> I don't think libcfs currently initializes any proc entries, so it's
> not clear how you will set obd_fail_loc. In theory libcfs should just
> thin library of porting primitives, and things like logging and
> fail_check should be in a layer just above libcfs which could have a
> management interface. So far we've just put some extra low-level
> functionality into libcfs, but at some point it should be refactored.
> I think when we need to add initialization code and an interface is
> that point.
>
> robert
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Nic Henke wrote:
>
> > Would there be any objection to a patch that'd move the current
> > obdclass-centric obd_fail_check and friends to libcfs ? I'd like to be
> > able to use the same logic inside LNET and our new LND without
> > replicating the code.
> >
> > I'm thinking it would need to be renamed to CFS_FAIL_CHECK as well.
> >
> > Thoughts or suggestions?
> >
> > Nic
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lustre-devel mailing list
> > Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-devel mailing list
> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-23 21:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-22 17:15 [Lustre-devel] moving obd_fail_check to libcfs Nic Henke
2009-02-23 8:11 ` Robert Read
2009-02-23 21:39 ` Eric Barton [this message]
2009-02-23 22:50 ` di wang
2009-02-23 23:53 ` Nicholas Henke
2009-02-24 1:04 ` di wang
2009-02-23 14:56 ` Eric Barton
2009-03-09 20:26 ` Nicholas Henke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='010b01c995ff$43083420$c9189c60$@com' \
--to=eeb@sun.com \
--cc=lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.