On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 27/10/17 14:25, Linus Walleij wrote: >> It is indeed tough to juggle this with the pressure to "upstream >> first" the BFQ scheduler policy that we are working on in Linaro >> to increase interactivity. We need to enable this on devices >> pronto and that means migrating MMC/SD to MQ and MQ only. >> I have shared this motivation since the start, so it should come >> as no surprise. > > IMHO BFQ is just another example of unnecessary delay. I do not see it as a delay to anything, it is a motivation for my work. I am telling you why I am still working on my patch set, what is driving and motivating it. I guess CQE is driving and motivating your work? >> So I also have some pressure to "Get This Feature In Now". > > It has nothing to do with pressure. It is about what is reasonable. > Features should go in as soon as they are ready. Ideally queued up in the > same release cycle they are submitted. If the code doesn't work right, then > it can't go in straight away, but fake reasons for delaying things needs to > stop. I don't understand who you are addressing or accusing. Nobody wants to delay CQE if that is what you are implying, I want to see it supported as much as you do. I just prefer to see MQ happen first, and now you say your patch set does that and that is great, so I just need to review the code better I guess? Yours, Linus Walleij
