From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 version 4] osdblk: a Linux block device for OSD objects Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:41:07 -0400 Message-ID: <4A15D883.1060104@garzik.org> References: <4A155FF6.3060005@panasas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:50262 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754986AbZEUWlM (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2009 18:41:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A155FF6.3060005@panasas.com> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Boaz Harrosh Cc: linux-scsi , open-osd mailing-list , Jens Axboe Boaz Harrosh wrote: > I'm posting for review a new version of the osdblk driver. What's new? > > * Once block/for-2.6.31 and all pending osd patches hit mainline. this new version > is ready for submission. > - The relevant osd patches have been posted on the mailing list, but I'll send an orderly > set for scsi-misc and scsi-post-merge on Sunday. > - All the prerequisite block patches are already in Jens's tree. > > * Below is the diff from Jeff's last version of the patch. these things have changed: > {SQUASHME: osdblk} Block and OSD Api fixups and bug fixes > > - Block API changes from Tejuns revamps > - OSD Api changes for supporting bio-chaining > - do_flush requests do not need bio clonning > (And might not have any so prevent such a crash) > - osdblk_make_credential is here to stay > - Use bio_kmalloc and avoid the bio_alloc dead/live locks. > TODO: Split request into smaller chunks if allocations fail. > - Only use __GFP_WAIT on first bio allocation. (Not relevant since > __GFP_WAIT is not used) > > * Added an extra patch: > - [PATCH 2/2] osdblk: Adjust queue limits to lower device's limits > > This is ontop of the post-merge tree. Jeff? will you push this driver > through your tree? > > What is left is to bang some serious testing on this driver. I'll do > that next. The changes look reasonable to me... if you wanted to get it into your tree and push it with other OSD stuff, that would be fine to me. I think you are in a better position to deal with all the pre-req's, and in a better position to test osdblk more completely. Have you messed around with the user tools yet? osdblk needs a tool that creates an OSD object of a specified size, etc. Jeff