Re: [CFC/CFT] large changes in the loader(8) code

on 16/07/2012 13:57 Andrey V. Elsukov said the following:
> On 16.07.2012 14:23, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 26/06/2012 15:50 Andrey V. Elsukov said the following:
>>> 3. ZFS code now uses new API and probing on the systems with many disks
>>> should be greatly increased:
>>>         zfs/zfs.c
>>>         i386/loader/main.c
>>
>> First of all, it's hard to parse the above sentence. "probing ... should be
>> greatly increased".  Probing what? :-)  If probing time, then we don't want that ;-)
>>
>> I looked through the ZFS-related part and here are a few comments:
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
>> 1. I think that the predominant indentation style of i386/loader/main.c should be
>> preserved for consistency.
>>
>> 2. I am not sure if I like the approach of moving partition tasting code into
>> common ZFS code (zfs.c).  On one hand, it now makes sense because the new
>> partition iteration code is machine-independent.  On the other hand, the reason
>> that I added arch_zfs_probe method was to give platforms full control over which
>> partitions and in what order are probed.  It seems to be important for some of them.
>> So, I like how your new partition interface makes it much easier to ZFS-probe
>> partitions, but I would prefer to have that code in arch_zfs_probe implementations
>> rather than in zfs_probe_dev.
> 
> From the other point of view, ZFS is not a just file system and it works
> directly with disks and partitions. And it seems to me this code will be common
> for other architectures.

Well, it seems that you haven't yet touched sparc64_zfs_probe.
If you'll find that you don't have to use any ugly hacks there, then good.
But my impression is that it would be easier to stick to the previous approach.

>> 3.  Related to the above.  In what shape is sparc64 ZFS support in your branch?
>> Have you tried to adapt it to the new model too?
>> It's the platform that has special requirements for disk/partition probing order.
>> Marius can help with additional information and testing here.
> 
> Currently i have not received any feedback reports from the users who can test
> patches on the other architectures. I added VTOC8 support to the part.c, but it
> seems it is not needed and ofw can work without this.
> 

-- 
Andriy Gapon