Re: Bcache upstreaming

[Kent Overstreet <koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:49:04AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Hey Kent,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Kent Overstreet <koverstreet-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>wrote:
> 
> > I've (finally!) got a bcache branch hacked up that ought to be suitable
> > to go upstream, possibly in staging initially.
> >
> > It's currently closer to the dev branch than the stable branch, plus
> > some additional minor changes to make it all more self contained. The
> > code has seen a decent amount of testing and I think it's in good shape,
> > but I'd like it if it could see a bit more testing before I see about
> > pushing it upstream.
> >
> > If anyone wants to try it out, checkout the bcache-for-staging branch.
> > It's against Linux 3.7.
> 
> 
> I pulled your 'bcache-for-staging' code into a 'dm-devel-cache-bcache'
> branch on my github:
> https://github.com/snitm/linux
> 
> Purpose is to have a single kernel to compare dm-cache and bcache.  My
> branch is against 3.8-rc2.  While importing your code I needed the
> following change to get bcache to compile:
> https://github.com/snitm/linux/commit/400b1257e93975864fd6c4b827537a0234551253
> 
> It now builds without issue but I haven't tested the resulting bcache to
> know if I broke the sysfs interface due to s/cache/bcache/ on some local
> variables, I don't think I did but I'll defer to you.  (BTW those crafty
> sysfs macros you have were pretty opaque; not really seeing what they buy
> in the grand scheme.  And #include "sysfs.c" is different than any code
> I've seen in the kernel).

Yeah, it was an ugly hack when I pulled the sysfs code out of super.c so
I could avoid adding a bunch of non static symbols. But apparantly the
various functions weren't even static in the first place, heh. I'll fix
this the right way, thanks.