> Il giorno 18 set 2019, alle ore 17:19, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:18:50AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> A solution that both fulfills userspace request and doesn't break
>> anything for hypothetical users of the current interface already made
>> it to mainline, and Linus liked it too. It is:
>
> Linus didn't like it. The implementation was a bit nasty. That was
> why it became a subject in the first place.
>
>> 19e9da9e86c4 ("block, bfq: add weight symlink to the bfq.weight cgroup parameter")
>>
>> But it was then reverted on Tejun's request to do exactly what we
>> don't want do any longer now:
>> cf8929885de3 ("cgroup/bfq: revert bfq.weight symlink change")
>
> Note that the interface was wrong at the time too.
>
>> So, Jens, Tejun, can we please just revert that revert?
>
> I think presenting both io.weight and io.bfq.weight interfaces are
> probably the best course of action at this point but why does it have
> to be a symlink? What's wrong with just creating another file with
> the same backing function?
>
I think a symlink would be much clearer for users, given the confusion
already caused by two names for the same parameter. But let's hear
others' opinion too.
Thanks,
Paolo
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
