Hi,
Oops.. sorry for the mess then. I am still trying to get to know the
codebase. I submitted a new patch where I removed the check.
Thanks for your patience :)
Best,
Filipe
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Drokin, Oleg <oleg.dro...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> No, it's not the way to test the kernel version, it's the way to test
> internal
> lustre version.
> Either way maintaining compatibility with Lustre 1.8 and 2.0 servers
> should not
> be important anymore, so it's fine to drop this check indeed.
>
> Bye,
> Oleg
> On Oct 11, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Filipe Gonçalves wrote:
>
>> Ah .. right! I didn't know what OBD_OCD_VERSION() was. Now I see it's
>> a way to test kernel version. I am going to submit a new patch
>> shortly.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Filipe
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Filipe Gonçalves wrote:
>>>> This patch fixes a sparse warning on layout.c (ptlrpc) that was caused by
>>>> having preprocessor directives in the arguments to a macro.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Gonçalves <fil...@codinghighway.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c | 7 +++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c
>>>> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c
>>>> index 5b83371..211df78 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/layout.c
>>>> @@ -978,10 +978,11 @@ struct req_msg_field RMF_CONN =
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(RMF_CONN);
>>>>
>>>> struct req_msg_field RMF_CONNECT_DATA =
>>>> +#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0)
>>>> DEFINE_MSGF("cdata",
>>>> RMF_F_NO_SIZE_CHECK /* we allow extra space for interop
>>>> */,
>>>> -#if LUSTRE_VERSION_CODE > OBD_OCD_VERSION(2, 7, 50, 0)
>>>> sizeof(struct obd_connect_data),
>>>> + lustre_swab_connect, NULL);
>>>
>>> Ick ick ick.
>>>
>>> Yeah, sparse might complain about this, but how about just properly
>>> deleting the #ifdef entirely, and not perpetuate it even more?
>>>
>>> It shouldn't be needed anymore now that the code is in the kernel tree.
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
