on 12/1/2022 9:46 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 11/30/22 6:45?PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >> >> Hi jens, >> on 10/18/2022 8:19 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: >>> This series contain a few patch to correct comment, correct trace of >>> vtime_rate and so on. More detail can be found in the respective >>> changelogs. >>> >>> --- >>> v2: >>> Thanks Tejun for review and comment! >>> Add Acked-by tag from Tejun. >>> Correct description in patch 3/5 and 4/5. >>> Drop "blk-iocost: Avoid to call current_hweight_max if iocg->inuse >>> == iocg->active" >>> Drop "blk-iocost: Remove redundant initialization of struct ioc_gq" >>> Drop "blk-iocost: Get ioc_now inside weight_updated" >>> --- >>> >>> Kemeng Shi (5): >>> blk-iocost: Fix typo in comment >>> blk-iocost: Reset vtime_base_rate in ioc_refresh_params >>> blk-iocost: Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate >>> blk-iocost: Remove vrate member in struct ioc_now >>> blk-iocost: Correct comment in blk_iocost_init >>> >>> block/blk-iocost.c | 16 +++++++++------- >>> include/trace/events/iocost.h | 4 ++-- >>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> Could you apply this patchset? >> By the way, my apply for an cloud variant of email was just passed >> a few days ago. Is this mail still in spam? > > This one wasn't, but I've seen the huaweicloud.com emails fail > the same origination checks in the past. I'm not sure if was there any fix to huaweicloud.com email. I will use this huaweicloud emails to minimize the trouble before any better solution is found. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Best wishes Kemeng Shi
