On 2015/12/21, 15:08, "lustre-devel on behalf of Greg Kroah-Hartman" <lustre-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 11:34:55AM -0500, James Simmons wrote: >> For UMP and SMP machines the struct cfs_cpt_table are >> defined differently. In the case handled by this patch >> nodemask is defined as a integer for the UMP case and >> as a pointer for the SMP case. This will cause a problem >> for ost_setup which reads the nodemask directly. Instead >> we create a UMP version of cfs_cpt_nodemask and use that >> in ost_setup. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Simmons <uja.ornl@xxxxxxxxx> >> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-4199 >> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/9219 >> Reviewed-by: Liang Zhen <liang.zhen@xxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Li Xi <pkuelelixi@xxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Starting in 3.14 kernels nodemask_t was changed from a >> a unsigned long to a linux bitmap so more than 32 cores >> could be supported. Using set_bit in cfs_cpt_table_alloc >> no longer compiles so this patch backports bits of the >> node management function that use a linux bitmap back >> end. Cleaned up libcfs bitmap.h to use the libcfs layers >> memory allocation function. This was pulling in lustre >> related code that was not defined. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Simmons <uja.ornl@xxxxxxxxx> >> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-4993 >> Reviewed-on: http://review.whamcloud.com/10332 >> Reviewed-by: Liang Zhen <liang.zhen@xxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Bob Glossman <bob.glossman@xxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@xxxxxxxxx> > >What is with this crazy two sections of signed-off-by? If this was 2 >patches, make it two patches. > >If not, then don't do this. > >Also, this whole series had no numbering, so I don't know how to apply >them, please fix and resend it. I suspect that this is merging two separate patches so that they do not introduce a regression when landed to master. In the past you've said you wanted fix patches merged into the original patch for this reason. I guess the right thing to do is to merge the Signed-off-by: lines at the end of the combined patch, rather than just mashing the commit messages together. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Lustre Principal Architect Intel High Performance Data Division _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
