On 09/11/17 14:04, Linus Walleij wrote: > 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. Alright > >>> 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? Never said we should keep it around. As soon as blk-mq is ready and tested, delete it. > >>> 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? Don't need non-CQE mmc blk-mq support for CQE support. -- 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
