> > This isn't some setup to solicit votes on who supports what. If the code isn't > upstream, it by definition doesn't exist to the kernel. No amount of "we're > also interested in this" changes that. > > What I wrote earlier still applies - whoever is interested in supporting lifetime > hints should submit that code upstream. The existing patchset to clean this > up doesn't change that process AT ALL. As mentioned, the only difference is > what the baseline looks like in terms of what the patchset is based on. > Jens, Actually we might work to issue a patch and revert the patch plus add the code that Bean and Bart mentioned which is currently Android only. The reason it has not been done before is because for now it's not production yet but it may soon be that case. Would this patch revert be an option and accepted as a closure for this discussion? Another option (which I actually prefer), if I ask for a MM & Storage BoF discussion on storage hints where I can show you the status of temperature management and my studies on how this is beneficial for storage devices. Would this be more beneficial and maybe get some wider consensus on the write hints? After that consensus reverting (or agreeing on a new approach) will be easier. > -- > Jens Axboe Cheers, Luca
