Hi Andrew! On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Andrew Shewmaker wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'm Andrew, a new Ceph intern, and I'll be working to get Marios' > Zipkin + LTTng repo into a merge-able state, as Sam asked about > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-devel/msg20024.html). Awesome! > I've exchanged email with Marios, and he is interested in > helping me with it in his spare time. One of the important > things he mentioned is that his blkin library only works > with LTTng 2.4. Other versions experience deadlocks, and > he'll work to resolve them in 2.5. > > I'm still working on getting a ceph development environment > set up, so I haven't tested the tracepoints Marios added. > I have built an RPM spec file for blkin, tested it against > lttng-ust 2.3 and 2.4, and built (but not tested) Marios' > ceph branch. > > Should I put effort into adding a "--with-blkin" or "--with-zipkin" > option to autoconf? Is it statically or dynamically linked? Probably a first step is to get it in the gitbuilder (test/qa) builds. > I've made a first attempt at dividing the changes into > logically grouped patches: common blkin infrastructure, > osd, and rados. Does that sound reasonable? Or should > I not bother separating osd and rados changes? Separate patches is good for review etc. > I saw a couple instances of extraneous whitespace/newlines > I'll clean up. What other issues should I look for? > > After they're cleaned up, would it be best for me to submit these > patches to the list, or just point to a github repo? A github pull request is best as that captures the review nicely and is how most of the code is going into ceph.git. Thanks! sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
