On 1/31/20 2:24 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > Hi Jens, > these patches are mostly fixes for the issues reported in [1, 2]. All > patches have been publicly tested in the dev version of BFQ. > > Thanks, > Paolo > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767539 > [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205447 > > Paolo Valente (6): > block, bfq: do not plug I/O for bfq_queues with no proc refs > block, bfq: do not insert oom queue into position tree > block, bfq: get extra ref to prevent a queue from being freed during a > group move > block, bfq: extend incomplete name of field on_st > block, bfq: get a ref to a group when adding it to a service tree > block, bfq: clarify the goal of bfq_split_bfqq() > > block/bfq-cgroup.c | 12 ++++++++++-- > block/bfq-iosched.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- > block/bfq-iosched.h | 3 ++- > block/bfq-wf2q.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) I wish some of these had been sent sooner, they really should have been sent in a few weeks ago. Just took a quick look at the bug reports, and at least one of the bugs mentions looks like it had a fix available 2 months ago. Have they been in -next? They are all marked as bug fixes, should they have stable tags? All of them, some of them? -- Jens Axboe
