On 9/3/24 8:45 PM, Yu Kuai wrote: > Hi, > > ? 2024/09/04 10:28, Bart Van Assche ??: >> On 9/3/24 6:32 PM, Yu Kuai wrote: >>> We do have customers are using bfq in downstream kernels, and we are >>> still running lots of test for bfq. >> >> It may take less time to add any missing functionality to another I/O >> scheduler rather than to keep maintaining BFQ. >> >> If Android device vendors would stop using BFQ, my job would become >> easier. > > I'm confused now, I think keep maintaining BFQ won't stop you from > adding new functionality to another scheduler, right? Is this something > that all scheduler have to support? With fear of putting words into Bart's mouth, perhaps he's saying that the BFQ is a bit of a mess and it'd be nice if we had a cleaner version of some of the features it brings. But having someone actually maintain it and perhaps clean it up a bit and reduce the complexity would be a good thing. Really it's the authors choice on where to best spend his or her time. -- Jens Axboe
