On 31/08/17 13:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 02:13:03PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: >> So adding a new (in effect) invasive block driver needs to at least >> be CC:ed to the block maintainers so we don't sneak anything like >> that in under the radar. > > Yes. > >> And this semaphoring and threading is just as confusing as ever and now >> we have two of them. (Sorry, I'm grumpy.) > > But your are grumpy for a good reason. The MMC driver is a pain > to understand for even a seasons block layer developer. > >> What we need is an MMC stack where it is clear where blocks come in >> and out and how they are processed by the block layer, but now we >> already have a scary Rube Goldberg-machine and it is not getting better. >> If people have different feelings they can tell me off right now. > > Agreed. > >> >> I have my hopes up that we can get the code lesser and more readable >> with MQ, as I tried to illustrate in my attempts, which are indeed lame >> because they don't work because of misc and SDIO use cases, but >> I'm honestly doing my best. Currently with other clean-ups to get a >> clean surface to do that. >> >> As it stands, the MQ migration work size is in some spots doubled or >> more than doubled after this commit :( > > I don't think we should merge this. > OK, let's merge the blk-mq version then. Here it is in V7: https://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=150418101630159&w=2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
