On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 02:57:30PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > It's not so much about it being more beneficial to run in blk-mq, as it > is about not having two code paths. But yes, we're likely going to > maintain that code for a long time, so it's not going anywhere anytime > soon. > > And for scsi-mq, it's already opt-in, though on a per-host basis. Doing > finer granularity than that is going to be difficult, unless we let > legacy-block and blk-mq share a tag map (though that would not be too > hard). I don't really think there's anything inherently counter productive to spinning rust (at least for somewhat modern spinning rust and infrastructure) in blk-mq. I'd really like to get rid of the old request layer in a reasonable amount of time, and for SCSI I'm very reluctant to add more integration between the old and new code. I'd really planning on not maintaining the old request based SCSI code for a long time once we get positive reports in from users of various kinds of older hardware. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
