Hello,
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:18:50AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> A solution that both fulfills userspace request and doesn't break
> anything for hypothetical users of the current interface already made
> it to mainline, and Linus liked it too. It is:
Linus didn't like it. The implementation was a bit nasty. That was
why it became a subject in the first place.
> 19e9da9e86c4 ("block, bfq: add weight symlink to the bfq.weight cgroup
> parameter")
>
> But it was then reverted on Tejun's request to do exactly what we
> don't want do any longer now:
> cf8929885de3 ("cgroup/bfq: revert bfq.weight symlink change")
Note that the interface was wrong at the time too.
> So, Jens, Tejun, can we please just revert that revert?
I think presenting both io.weight and io.bfq.weight interfaces are
probably the best course of action at this point but why does it have
to be a symlink? What's wrong with just creating another file with
the same backing function?
Thanks.
--
tejun
