[LU-3269] Many symbol warnings at rpm installation time Created: 03/May/13  Updated: 14/May/13  Resolved: 14/May/13

Status: Resolved
Project: Lustre
Component/s: None
Affects Version/s: None
Fix Version/s: Lustre 2.4.0

Type: Bug Priority: Minor
Reporter: Christopher Morrone Assignee: Minh Diep
Resolution: Fixed Votes: 0
Labels: patch

Severity: 3
Rank (Obsolete): 8106

 Description   

After the change from LU-2391 to move the lustre-osd.*.ko modules into their own packages, we left a problem behind.

The rpm package dependencies now look a bit like this:

 lustre -> lustre-modules <-> lustre-osd-[ldiskfs|zfs] (via lustre-osd)

Note that the dependency between lustre-modules and lustre-osd-* goes both ways.

We did that in the one direction because we need something to depend on the generic "Provides: lustre-osd" when we have server support compiled in, so users will be clued in to the fact that they need to select at least one of the lustre-osd-* packages.

In the other direction, the lustre-osd-* packages need to depend on lustre-modules because the kernel modules contained in the lustre-osd-* rpms really do use symbols from modules in the lustre-modules rpm.

RPM allows this circular dependency, but because of it the modules are not
necessarily installed in the order that we prefer. Namely:

1) lustre
2) lustre-modules
3) lustre-osd-*

It can happen that the lustre-osd-* packages are installed before the lustre-modules package, and then the sysadmin will see a screen full of scary messages about missing symbols.

To fix that problem, we move the dependency on lustre-osd up one package into the "lustre" package. That makes the dependency graph look a bit like:

    lustre -> lustre-modules
        |--> lustre-osd-[ldiskfs|zfs] (via lustre-osd)
    lustre-osd-[ldiskfs|zfs] -> lustre-modules

I believe that by breaking the dependency loop, we will get the desired
package installation order described above.

I'll submit a patch shortly.



 Comments   
Comment by Christopher Morrone [ 03/May/13 ]

Patch submitted:

http://review.whamcloud.com/6259

Comment by Peter Jones [ 04/May/13 ]

Thanks Cbris!

Minh

Could you please look into this one?

Thanks

Peter

Comment by Nathaniel Clark [ 14/May/13 ]

Landed for 2.4

Generated at Sat Feb 10 01:32:25 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.4.14#940014-sha1:734e6822bbf0d45eff9af51f82432957f73aa32c.