On 2022/2/17 2:01 上午, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 2/15/22 18:09, Wang Jianchao wrote: >> On 2022/2/16 5:26 上午, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> On 2/15/22 04:37, Wang Jianchao (Kuaishou) wrote: >>>> diff --git a/block/Makefile b/block/Makefile >>>> index f38eaa612929..f6a3995af285 100644 >>>> --- a/block/Makefile >>>> +++ b/block/Makefile >>>> @@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_BSGLIB) += bsg-lib.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP) += blk-cgroup.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP_RWSTAT) += blk-cgroup-rwstat.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_THROTTLING) += blk-throttle.o >>>> -obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP_IOPRIO) += blk-ioprio.o >>>> +io-prio-y := blk-ioprio.o >>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP_IOPRIO) += io-prio.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP_IOLATENCY) += blk-iolatency.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP_IOCOST) += blk-iocost.o >>>> obj-$(CONFIG_MQ_IOSCHED_DEADLINE) += mq-deadline.o >>> >>> Is the above change really necessary? >> >> Except for making maintaining easier on a running system, removing a >> rqos policy module with cgroup supporting can release a blk-cgroup >> policy slots. As BLKCG_MAX_POLS, the max slots number is fixed now. > > It seems like my question was not clear? What I meant is that I think that the above changes are not necessary to build blk-ioprio as a kernel module. > Thanks so much for your kindly remind. I have changed it. Regards Jianchao
