On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/11/17 11:00, Linus Walleij wrote: >> This and other bits gives me the feeling CQE is now actually ONLY >> working on the MQ path. > > I was not allowed to support non-mq. Fair enough. >> That is good. We only add new functionality on the MQ path, >> yay! >> >> But this fact (only abailable iff MQ==true) should at least be >> mentioned in the commit message I think? > > Why? CQE is MQ only. So if you read what I say, I think the commit message should say that CQE is MQ only so that people know that CQE is MQ only. >> So why not ditch the old block layer or at least make MQ default? > > CQE is MQ only. Yeah? So why keep it around for everything else? >> When you keep it like this people have to reconfigure >> their kernel to enable MQ before they see the benefits of MQ+CQE >> combined, I think that should rather be the default experience. > > Not at all. I guess you are confusing the legacy mmc with CQE. CQE is not > a layer on top of legacy mmc. It is an alternative to legacy mmc. CQE > does not sit on top of the legacy mmc blk-mq support. You don't have to > enable legacy mmc blk-mq support to use CQE. Now I am confused. I can't parse the last sentence. There is no such thing as legcay blk-mq? Yours, Linus Walleij -- 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
