These changes bring the zfs-0.4.4 tree in to compliance with
the spl-0.4.4 packaging changes. The bottom line is 2 source
rpms and 4 binary rpms will now be generated when creating
packages there will be:
zfs-<version>.src.rpm
- Fully rebuildable source rpm for libzfs and utils.
zfs-modules-<version>.src.rpm
- Fully rebuildable source rpm for kernel modules.
zfs-<version>.<arch>.rpm
- Binary rpm for libzfs and utils. The utils in this package are
compatible with all zfs-module rpms of the same version.
zfs-devel-<version>.<arch>.rpm
- Binary rpm containing headers for building against libzfs libraries.
zfs-modules-<verion>-<kernel>.arch.rpm
- Binary rpm containing the kernel modules for a specific kernel build.
The package name contains the kernel version and you should have one
of these packages installed to match every kernel on your system.
zfs-modules-devel-<verion>-<kernel>.arch.rpm
- Binary rpm containing development header and module symbols needed
for building additional kernel modules which are dependent on the
zfs module stack.
Expect minor interations on these changes as I validate they work
properly on CHAOS, RHEL, Fedora, and SLES style distros.
- Add 64-bit user space atomic support obtained from an old version
of OpenSolaris which supported ppc. They are not all 100% fully
implemented by they are a good first step.
- Add powerpc ISA type.
- Strip out unused ISA defines to prevent any confusion.
Depending on your x86 architecture $target_cpu can evaluate to
any of the following (i386|i486|i586|i686). Since our local asm
uses only i386 instructions sed is used to map all of these to
i386 and sets $target_arch. Other arch's are not impacted.
Moved xdr_control() function from static inline in xdr.h in to a
new xdr.c file which was added to the libspl build. Additionally,
I have removed the 'xdr_bytesrec' typedef which shares the same
name as the struct. This is what Solaris does, but it's just asking
for trouble. It has been replaced with an 'xdr_bytesrec_t' typedef.
Most of these fixes appear to be harmless and should never occur.
However, there were a few cases in this patch which do concern me,
I doubt we're seeing them but they look possible... mainly in the
user tools.
The previous code was not wrong, but this prevents gcc from warning
us about missing cases for these known safe switch statements. The
-Wno-missing-cases can now be removed to detect places where we
accidentally forgot a case.
Brian Behlendorf