Re: [PATCH V2 00/16] Introduce the BFQ I/O scheduler

2017-04-11 Thread Paolo Valente
> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 18:56, Bart Van Assche > ha scritto: > > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 14:47 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> [ ... ] > > Hello Paolo, > > Is the git tree that is available at https://github.com/Algodev-github/bfq-mq > appropriate for

Re: [PATCH V2 00/16] Introduce the BFQ I/O scheduler

2017-04-11 Thread Paolo Valente
> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 18:56, Bart Van Assche > ha scritto: > > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 14:47 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> [ ... ] > > Hello Paolo, > > Is the git tree that is available at https://github.com/Algodev-github/bfq-mq > appropriate for testing BFQ? If I merge that tree

Re: [PATCH V2 00/16] Introduce the BFQ I/O scheduler

2017-04-10 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 14:47 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > [ ... ] Hello Paolo, Is the git tree that is available at https://github.com/Algodev-github/bfq-mq appropriate for testing BFQ? If I merge that tree with v4.11-rc6 and if I run the srp-test software against that tree as follows:

Re: [PATCH V2 00/16] Introduce the BFQ I/O scheduler

2017-04-10 Thread Bart Van Assche
On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 14:47 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > [ ... ] Hello Paolo, Is the git tree that is available at https://github.com/Algodev-github/bfq-mq appropriate for testing BFQ? If I merge that tree with v4.11-rc6 and if I run the srp-test software against that tree as follows:

[PATCH V2 00/16] Introduce the BFQ I/O scheduler

2017-03-31 Thread Paolo Valente
Hi, with respect to the previous submission [1], these new patch series: - contains all the changes suggested by Jens and Bart [1], apart from those for which I raised doubts that either have been acknowledged, or have not received a reply yet (I will of course apply also the latter changes

[PATCH V2 00/16] Introduce the BFQ I/O scheduler

2017-03-31 Thread Paolo Valente
Hi, with respect to the previous submission [1], these new patch series: - contains all the changes suggested by Jens and Bart [1], apart from those for which I raised doubts that either have been acknowledged, or have not received a reply yet (I will of course apply also the latter changes