On 24/10/17 08:37, Ulf Hansson wrote: > + Bartlomiej > > [...] > >>>>>> So my conclusion is, let's start a as you suggested, by not completing >>>>>> the request in ->done() as to maintain existing behavior. Then we can >>>>>> address optimizations on top, which very likely will involve doing >>>>>> changes to host drivers as well. >>>>> >>>>> Have you tested the latest version now? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ping? >>> >>> Still ping? >> >> How is your silence in any way an acceptable way to execute your >> responsibilities as maintainer! > > Seriously? You posted the new version Oct 13. When you constantly go silent it looks like you are deliberately delaying the patches - which you have a long history of doing. Are you deliberately delaying again? What are you plans for the patches? Why do you think mmc work is so unimportant it can be left to whenever you deign to get around to it? > > I had to make some late minute travel decisions, so unfortunate I > won't be able to test this on HW from this Friday. > > However, you have completely ignored mine, Linus and Bartlomiej's > comments about that we want the blkmq port being a separate patch(es) > and then make the CMDQ patches on top. This worries me, because it > seems like our messages don't reach you. Rubbish! I gave a very good reason for keeping the CQE code in - it is designed to work together. I also pointed out that it is trivial to see the CQE code and that it is all '+' lines anyway. But not one question in response! Where is a single example of why it is difficult like it is. Where are the questions! Not even a request for documentation! How I am supposed to know what you do or don't understand if you don't ask any questions! There is no evidence that you guys have read a single line! So, what are your plans for the patches? What don't you understand? -- 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
