On 05/09/17 20:54, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 5 September 2017 at 10:10, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 05/09/17 10:24, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can send blk-mq support for legacy requests in a few days if you like, but >>>>>> I want to hear a better explanation of why you are delaying CQE support. >>>>> >>>>> That would be very nice, however be aware of that we are in the merge >>>>> window, so I am not picking new material for 4.14 from this point. I >>>>> assume you understand why. >>>> >>>> Nope. This is new functionality - doesn't affect anyone who doesn't have a >>>> command queue engine. Next to no chance of regressions. Tested by several >>>> in the community. Substantially unchanged since February. It is not even >>>> very much code in the block driver. >>> >>> Let me make it clear, once more - I don't want to maintain more hacks >>> in mmc block layer code. >>> >>> This series add blkmq support, using a method (which may be considered >>> as intermediate) via a new change in patch1 - but only for the new CQE >>> path. That means the old legacy mmc block path is still there. So, for >>> the reason stated above - no thanks! >> >> And where is your alternative. When I pointed out you need a way to >> arbitrate between internal partitions, you went silent again. >> >> Can't have CQE without blk-mq but can't have blk-mq because you don't >> understand it, is hardly acceptable. > > Adrian, this discussion seems to lead nowhere. Can we please stop and > be constructive instead! If you want to be constructive you will queue CQE support for v4.15 now! > > Regarding the arbitration issue. We have been moving forward, > re-factoring the mmc block driver code, soon also solving the problem > for the rpmb internal partition [1]. Maybe the background to why Linus > is working on mmc block re-factoring, hasn't been entirely clear. > Anyway, it's exactly because of moving closer to address these issues. Nope, wrt blk-mq you are moving sideways with no clear idea where you're going. > Even if the problems certainly becomes a step harder to resolve for > the boot and the general purpose partitions, it's still a path we > should try to find a solution for. Yeah, that may mean we need to > suggest changes for the generic block layer, to teach it to better > deal with these kind of devices. You mean you have no idea how to do it but we are still expected to wait. How is that acceptable! > Finally, I have never said the arbitration issue *must* be solved > before converting to blkmq. Only that we should avoid performance > regressions, but that of course applies to whatever changes we do. Then there is no problem in queuing up the CQE patches now!
