Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rename macro ZFS_MINOR due to lustre conflict #8195

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 11, 2018

Conversation

ofaaland
Copy link
Contributor

@ofaaland ofaaland commented Dec 7, 2018

Motivation and Context

Macro ZFS_MINOR, introduced in commit a6cc975 to record the chosen
static minor number for /dev/zfs, conflicts with an existing macro
in Lustre. The lustre macro (along with _MAJOR, _PATCH, _FIX) is
used to record the zfsonlinux version Lustre is being built against.

Since the Lustre macro came first, and is used in past versions of
lustre at least going back to 2.10, it makes sense to rename the
macro in ZFS instead of doing so in Lustre which would require
backporting the patch.

Description

Rename ZFS_MINOR ZFS_DEVICE_MINOR.

How Has This Been Tested?

Depending on automated testing.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Performance enhancement (non-breaking change which improves efficiency)
  • Code cleanup (non-breaking change which makes code smaller or more readable)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation (a change to man pages or other documentation)

Checklist:

Macro ZFS_MINOR, introduced in commit a6cc975 to record the chosen
static minor number for /dev/zfs, conflicts with an existing macro
in Lustre.  The lustre macro (along with _MAJOR, _PATCH, _FIX) is
used to record the zfsonlinux version Lustre is being built against.

Since the Lustre macro came first, and is used in past versions of
lustre at least going back to 2.10, it makes sense to rename the
macro in ZFS instead of doing so in Lustre which would require
backporting the patch.

Signed-off-by: Olaf Faaland <faaland1@llnl.gov>
@ofaaland
Copy link
Contributor Author

ofaaland commented Dec 7, 2018

If this is acceptable, then https://review.whamcloud.com/33805 is unnecessary.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 8, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #8195 into master will decrease coverage by 0.08%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #8195      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   78.53%   78.44%   -0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         378      378              
  Lines      114877   114877              
==========================================
- Hits        90216    90121      -95     
- Misses      24661    24756      +95
Flag Coverage Δ
#kernel 79% <ø> (+0.04%) ⬆️
#user 67.09% <ø> (-0.39%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 900d09b...6102171. Read the comment docs.

@behlendorf behlendorf merged commit fa61e72 into openzfs:master Dec 11, 2018
@behlendorf behlendorf added the Status: Accepted Ready to integrate (reviewed, tested) label Dec 11, 2018
GregorKopka pushed a commit to GregorKopka/zfs that referenced this pull request Jan 7, 2019
Macro ZFS_MINOR, introduced in commit a6cc975 to record the chosen
static minor number for /dev/zfs, conflicts with an existing macro
in Lustre.  The lustre macro (along with _MAJOR, _PATCH, _FIX) is
used to record the zfsonlinux version Lustre is being built against.

Since the Lustre macro came first, and is used in past versions of
lustre at least going back to 2.10, it makes sense to rename the
macro in ZFS instead of doing so in Lustre which would require
backporting the patch.

Reviewed-by: Giuseppe Di Natale <guss80@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tony Hutter <hutter2@llnl.gov>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Olaf Faaland <faaland1@llnl.gov>
Closes openzfs#8195
@tonyhutter tonyhutter added this to To do in 0.7.13 Jan 7, 2019
@tonyhutter tonyhutter moved this from To do to In progress in 0.7.13 Jan 28, 2019
tonyhutter pushed a commit to tonyhutter/zfs that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2019
Macro ZFS_MINOR, introduced in commit a6cc975 to record the chosen
static minor number for /dev/zfs, conflicts with an existing macro
in Lustre.  The lustre macro (along with _MAJOR, _PATCH, _FIX) is
used to record the zfsonlinux version Lustre is being built against.

Since the Lustre macro came first, and is used in past versions of
lustre at least going back to 2.10, it makes sense to rename the
macro in ZFS instead of doing so in Lustre which would require
backporting the patch.

Reviewed-by: Giuseppe Di Natale <guss80@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tony Hutter <hutter2@llnl.gov>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Olaf Faaland <faaland1@llnl.gov>
Closes openzfs#8195
@ofaaland ofaaland deleted the b-zfs-minor-conflict branch February 26, 2019 18:03
tonyhutter pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2019
Macro ZFS_MINOR, introduced in commit a6cc975 to record the chosen
static minor number for /dev/zfs, conflicts with an existing macro
in Lustre.  The lustre macro (along with _MAJOR, _PATCH, _FIX) is
used to record the zfsonlinux version Lustre is being built against.

Since the Lustre macro came first, and is used in past versions of
lustre at least going back to 2.10, it makes sense to rename the
macro in ZFS instead of doing so in Lustre which would require
backporting the patch.

Reviewed-by: Giuseppe Di Natale <guss80@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Tony Hutter <hutter2@llnl.gov>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Olaf Faaland <faaland1@llnl.gov>
Closes #8195
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Accepted Ready to integrate (reviewed, tested)
Projects
No open projects
0.7.13
  
In progress
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants