Björn Torkelsson wrote:
On ons, 2007-02-14 at 13:06 -0800, Nathaniel Rutman wrote:
Niklas Edmundsson wrote:
Searching for patchless in the bugzilla doesn't that much useful
information...
Seriously, this habit of saying "it's in the bugzilla" as an excuse
for not documenting stuff is getting a bit annoying. The thing closest
to an effort of collecting various information in a usable manner
seems to be the wiki, and even though it should be rather easy to edit
it seems to be hopelessly out of date. The front page shows all sorts
of stuff that's probably obsolete, but useful stuff that's actually up
to date (like the mountconf docco) isn't listed there.
Yes, it will take some efforts to get the wiki up to speed but I think
it will be worth the effort.
I agree with you completely. Of course, there is plenty of other work
for us to do...
But we made you a special page:
https://mail.clusterfs.com/wikis/lustre/PatchlessClient
Are there any test suite that should be run to "certify" the patchless
client for other (distribution specific) kernels? So that they can be
added to the wiki too?
We run a full suite of tests against each of these kernels -- but I have
no objection to adding a "user reported" section that lists which
kernels have been tried, and problems/successes associated.
If you're building from source, the acceptance-small.sh suite under
lustre/tests gives pretty good coverage, although that's intended to
test servers also. At the minimum, sanity.sh should be able to be run
on a client.
Start your patchless client, then just
/lustre/tests# sh sanity.sh
_______________________________________________
Lustre-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.clusterfs.com/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
