On 24/10/17 10:39, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>> However, you have completely ignored mine, Linus and Bartlomiej's >>> comments about that we want the blkmq port being a separate patch(es) >>> and then make the CMDQ patches on top. This worries me, because it >>> seems like our messages don't reach you. >> >> Rubbish! I gave a very good reason for keeping the CQE code in - it is >> designed to work together. I also pointed out that it is trivial to see the >> CQE code and that it is all '+' lines anyway. > > You gave reasons, but none of us bought them. > >> >> But not one question in response! Where is a single example of why it is >> difficult like it is. Where are the questions! Not even a request for >> documentation! How I am supposed to know what you do or don't understand if >> you don't ask any questions! There is no evidence that you guys have read a >> single line! > > I have and I have also tested it, finding it not working. As reported. > > However, I have also told you that I am having a *hard time* to review > it, because it implements both blkmq and CMDQ in the same patch to > code changes get complex. > >> >> So, what are your plans for the patches? What don't you understand? > > I have told you this several time, so has Linus and Bartlomiej. > > If you can split it up such the blkmq support comes first, then I can > review/test and pick it up. I have done the split, but of course the code is just the same.
