On 26/05/23 20:27, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 5/26/23 00:11, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> Why would we want to when we don't have to? > > Anyone is allowed to formulate objections to a patch but when objecting to a patch or an approach please explain *why*. I think I already explained that unconditionally enabling BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING makes testing the UFS host controller driver easier. I don't think you are claiming blocking queues are better for block drivers than non-blocking queues, so it is quite reasonable to stay with non-blocking queues. I am not sure testing is really relevant to this discussion, but it seems like different combinations need to be tested anyway e.g. testing with / without clock gating is the same testing with / without blocking. > >> So with those fixed and the vops->may_block instead of vops->nonblocking: > > [ ... ] > > I think a much simpler solution exists. I plan to post a new version of this patch series soon. Thank you!
