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.
