Messages in this thread | | | From | Peng Tao <> | Date | Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:36:20 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/48] staging/lustre/ptlrpc: Translate between host and network errnos |
| |
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 00:06 +0800, Peng Tao wrote: >> From: Li Wei <wei.g.li@intel.com> >> >> Lustre puts system errors (e.g., ENOTCONN) on wire as numbers >> essentially specific to senders' architectures. While this is fine >> for x86-only sites, where receivers share the same error number >> definition with senders, problems will arise, however, for sites >> involving multiple architectures with different error number >> definitions. For instance, an ENOTCONN reply from a sparc server will >> be put on wire as -57, which, for an x86 client, means EBADSLT >> instead. >> >> To solve the problem, this patch defines a set of network errors for >> on-wire or on-disk uses. These errors correspond to a subset of the >> x86 system errors and share the same number definition, maintaining >> compatibility with existing x86 clients and servers. >> >> Then, either error numbers could be translated at run time, or all >> host errors going on wire could be replaced with network errors in the >> code. This patch does the former by introducing both generic and >> field-specific translation routines and calling them at proper places, >> so that translations for existing fields are transparent. >> (Personally, I tend to think the latter way might be worthwhile, as it >> is more straightforward conceptually. Do we really need so many >> different errors? Should errors returned by kernel routines really be >> passed up and eventually put on wire? There could even be security >> implications in that.) >> >> Thank Fujitsu for the original idea and their contributions that make >> this available upstream. >> >> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-2743 >> Lustre-change: http://review.whamcloud.com/5577 >> Signed-off-by: Li Wei <wei.g.li@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Hiroya Nozaki <nozaki.hiroya@jp.fujitsu.com> >> Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: Peng Tao <tao.peng@emc.com> >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com> >> --- >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig | 5 + >> .../lustre/lustre/include/lustre/lustre_errno.h | 215 +++++++++++ >> .../lustre/lustre/include/lustre/lustre_idl.h | 2 + >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre_net.h | 32 ++ >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_lock.c | 3 +- >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_lockd.c | 2 + >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ldlm/ldlm_request.c | 6 +- >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_locks.c | 10 + >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/mdc/mdc_request.c | 1 + >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/osc/osc_request.c | 2 + >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/errno.c | 382 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/niobuf.c | 3 +- >> .../staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/pack_generic.c | 3 + >> 14 files changed, 662 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> create mode 100644 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/include/lustre/lustre_errno.h >> create mode 100644 drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/errno.c >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig >> index 0a8eb1ad..19a1c33 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/Kconfig >> @@ -59,3 +59,8 @@ config LUSTRE_DEBUG_EXPENSIVE_CHECK >> expensive checks that may have a performance impact. >> >> Use with caution. If unsure, say N. >> + >> +config LUSTRE_TRANSLATE_ERRNOS >> + bool >> + depends on LUSTRE_FS && !X86 >> + default true > > Did you mean "default y"? > You are right. I wasn't aware of the mistake and have all the bool default to either "true" or "false"...
Thanks for pointing it out. I'll send patch to fix all of them.
Thanks, Tao
| |