> Il giorno 29 mar 2019, alle ore 17:44, Holger Hoffstätte <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > On 3/29/19 5:15 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> Good catch! I run without group scheduling and therefore didn't notice these >>>>> stray defines earlier. For 5.1 it should merge cleanly; adding this on top of >>>>> the pending 5.2 BFQ patches required a small context fixup in hunk #1 due to >>>>> "block, bfq: do not idle for lowest-weight queues". >>>> >>>> I'm hesitant to apply this, since the group scheduling stuff has obviously never >>>> been tested. >>> >>> This is simply a regression in 5.1 caused by 73d58118498b - nothing else, >>> and as such this fix needs to go into 5.1 as well. I'm sure Paolo will agree. >>> What you so ominously call "the group scheduling stuff" has been there and >>> shipping in mainline since day 1 of the BFQ merge, and it works fine in 5.0. >> If that's the case (I didn't check how far back it went), then yes, it should >> of course go into 5.1. > > Yay. > >> The ominous nature of my reply I'll chalk up to your interpretation > > Fair enough ;) > > A more interesting question is why upstream uses undefined defines > for patches. That's a first-rate self-grenade if I've ever seen one, > and obviously something that is easily missed. Paolo? > Paolo feels a little bit ashamed for this mistake :) This horrible typo may also be the cause of the crashes recently reported on this list. I've just asked to try this fix: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/626EAE58-63C1-4ABA-9040-9D9A61F74A0D@xxxxxxxxxx/T/ And yes, I agree that this fix should be applied to 5.1. Thank you Konstantin for spotting and removing this bomb. Thanks, Paolo > -h
