Re: [PATCH V2 1/7] block/rbd: bump librbd requirement to luminous release

[Jason Dillaman]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:29 AM Peter Lieven <pl@kamp.de> wrote:
>
> Am 15.02.21 um 13:13 schrieb Kevin Wolf:
> > Am 15.02.2021 um 12:45 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben:
> >> Am 15.02.21 um 12:41 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 12:32:24PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >>>> Am 15.02.21 um 11:24 schrieb Daniel P. Berrangé:
> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >>>>>> even luminous (version 12.2) is unmaintained for over 3 years now.
> >>>>>> Bump the requirement to get rid of the ifdef'ry in the code.
> >>>>> We have clear rules on when we bump minimum versions, determined by
> >>>>> the OS platforms we target:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      https://qemu.readthedocs.io/en/latest/system/build-platforms.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At this time RHEL-7 is usually the oldest platform, and it
> >>>>> builds with RBD 10.2.5, so we can't bump the version to 12.2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm afraid this patch has to be dropped.
> >>>> I have asked exactly this question before I started work on this series 
> >>>> and got reply
> >>>>
> >>>> from Jason that he sees no problem in bumping to a release which is 
> >>>> already unmaintained
> >>>>
> >>>> for 3 years.
> >>> I'm afraid Jason is wrong here.  It doesn't matter what the upstream
> >>> consider the support status to be. QEMU targets what the OS vendors
> >>> ship, and they still consider this to be a supported version.
> >>
> >> Okay, but the whole coroutine stuff would get a total mess with all
> >> the ifdef'ry.
> > Hm, but how are these ifdefs even related to the coroutine conversation?
> > It's a bit more code that you're moving around, but shouldn't it be
> > unchanged from the old code, just moving from an AIO callback to a
> > coroutine? Or am I missing some complications?
>
>
> No, the ifdef's only come back in for the write zeroes part.
>
>
> >
> >> Would it be an option to make a big ifdef in the rbd driver? One with
> >> old code for < 12.0.0 and one
> >>
> >> with new code for >= 12.0.0?
> > I don't think this is a good idea, this would be a huge mess to
> > maintain.
> >
> > The conversion is probably a good idea in general, simply because it's
> > more in line with the rest of the block layer, but I don't think it adds
> > anything per se, so it's hard to justify such duplication with the
> > benefits it brings.
>
>
> I would wait for Jasons comment on the rbd part of the series and then spin a 
> V3
>
> with a for-6.1 tag.

Sorry for the long delay -- I was delayed from being out-of-town. I've
reviewed and play-tested the patches and it looks good for me. I'll
wait for V3 before adding my official review.

>
>
> Peter
>


-- 
Jason