Re: [PATCH V7 00/10] mmc: Add Command Queue support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 05/09/17 10:24, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>>>
>>>> I can send blk-mq support for legacy requests in a few days if you like, but
>>>> I want to hear a better explanation of why you are delaying CQE support.
>>>
>>> That would be very nice, however be aware of that we are in the merge
>>> window, so I am not picking new material for 4.14 from this point. I
>>> assume you understand why.
>>
>> Nope.  This is new functionality - doesn't affect anyone who doesn't have a
>> command queue engine.  Next to no chance of regressions.  Tested by several
>> in the community.  Substantially unchanged since February.  It is not even
>> very much code in the block driver.
> 
> Let me make it clear, once more - I don't want to maintain more hacks
> in mmc block layer code.
> 
> This series add blkmq support, using a method (which may be considered
> as intermediate) via a new change in patch1 - but only for the new CQE
> path. That means the old legacy mmc block path is still there. So, for
> the reason stated above - no thanks!

And where is your alternative.  When I pointed out you need a way to
arbitrate between internal partitions, you went silent again.

Can't have CQE without blk-mq but can't have blk-mq because you don't
understand it, is hardly acceptable.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Still, big changes is always nice to queue up early for a release
>>> cycle. Let's aim for that!
>>
>> You said that in February.  Never happened.  You said you wanted blk-mq, so
>> I waited to re-base on top, but it never appeared.
> 
> Yes, I want blkmq - and I believe I have explained why several times by now.
> 
> Unfortunate, blkmq just doesn't appear, we have to work on it - together.

If we are working on it together, how come you have never taken the time to
find out how blk-mq works?

> 
>>
>>> Moreover, I am not delaying CQE, but really want it to be merged asap!
>>> However, I am also having the role as a maintainer and the things that
>>> comes with it. For example, I would like the community to reach
>>> consensus around how to move forward with CQE, before I decide to pick
>>> it up.
>>
>> It has been more than 6 months.  That is enough time to wait for "consensus".
> 
> Normally it should be more than enough, on the other hand, it has
> turned out this was more complex than we first thought.

Nonsense.  I have raised the issues time and again but there have never been
any replies.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux