Re: [PATCH 0/] OSD changes for 2.6.31

Boaz Harrosh
2009-06-10T09:10:50Z

On 05/24/2009 07:58 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> These are the accumulated osd patches for the next merge window,
> Linux 2.6.31.
>
> Most of these patches are a repost rebased on latest scsi-misc
>
> List of patches:
> [PATCH 01/10 resend] libosd: OSD2r05: Additional command enums
> [PATCH 02/10 resend] libosd: OSD2r05: Attribute definitions
> [PATCH 03/10 resend] libosd: Better printout of OSD target system information
> [PATCH 04/10 resend] libosd: osd_req_{read,write}_kern new API
> [PATCH 05/10 resend] libosd: Let _osd_req_finalize_data_integrity receive number of out_bytes
> [PATCH 06/10 resend] libosd: osd_req_{read,write} takes a length parameter
>
> These are a resend. The last 2 patches are important for supporting Jeff's
> osdblk driver. (The first 4 are old patches that thier time has come)
>
> [PATCH 07/10] libosd: Define an osd_dev wrapper to retrieve the request_queue
> Simple wrapper
>
> [PATCH 08/10] osduld: use filp_open() when looking up an osd-device
>
> This patch was inspired by Al Viro. It uses the in-kernel open-file
> mechanism to look up the osd char-device for Kernel users like exofs
> and later pNFS-Objlayout.
> It was heavily tested and works well.
> It fixes the problem we had before, of need to open+close a file handle
> on the osd-char-device before mounting an exofs.
> Please review
>
> [PATCH 09/10] libosd: Use REQ_QUIET requests.
> Recent scsi_lib changes, caused a dmesg span in exofs+osd regular use,
> because of the way we routinely receive a recovered scsi sense. Recently, for
> reason I could not find, this condition started to print messages at:
> scsi_io_comlition:778 (look for "== RECOVERED_ERROR")
> Use of a REQ_QUIET flag is needed to silence these prints.
> OSD has it's own prints for scsi-sense returns, when needed.
>
> [PATCH 10/10] osd: Remove out-of-tree left overs
>

The merge window has risen upon us and these patches are still not
in scsi-misc. (Luckily they where in linux-next through the osd tree)
If these will not go into 2.6.31 I'm very screwed, with the pNFS stuff,
Please reconsider?

Thanks in advance
Boaz