On 11/30/22 7:20 PM, Kemeng Shi wrote: > > > 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. Thanks, I'll let you know if I run into issues with the cloud email. -- Jens Axboe
