Ashley You are correct. Andreas has outlined the work that is required in bz 21524
Peter Ashley Pittman wrote: > On 25 Nov 2010, at 14:04, Alexey Lyashkov wrote: > > >> Ashley, >> >> I don't clearry understand what you want, if you say about patchless support >> on client - >> typical size of adding support of one new kernel to pachless client is ~40kb >> of patch for lustre. >> Sometimes is has more work, sometimes less. >> As last lustre supported kernel is 2.6.32 - you should be plan to have >> ~150kb patch for 2.6.37 kernel support. >> > > I hadn't realise it was this much work for tracking client versions! > > >> if you say about patchless kernel support - yes, that is possible, but that >> is need more work and submiting lots patches in kernel upstream. >> > > Yes this is what I meant, patchless kernel support. It was mentioned at SC > that this might be possible and I was looking for more information on the > type of changes and scale of work which would be involved to do this. There > was the suggestion made that Lustre was originally written against much older > kernels and that given increased functionality exported in modern kernels it > would be possible to reduce or perhaps even eliminate the kernel patches > entirely and my question was asking if anybody has done a feasibility study > into this and if so would they be willing to publish the conclusions. > > Ashley, > _______________________________________________ > Lustre-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss > > _______________________________________________ Lustre-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
