Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel

[Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>]

On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 September 2005 13:42, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > >>The name for one.  There is no elevator algorithm anywhere in it.  There
> > > >>is a least block number first algorithm that was called an elevator, but
> > > >>    
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Well the terminology changed to "io scheduler" now, however the
> > > >residual "elevator" name found in places doesn't cause anyone
> > > >any problems and there isn't much reason to change it other than
> > > >the desire to break things.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > Did you really say that?    I mean, come on, can't you at least manage a
> > > "well, it ought to get changed but I am busy with something more
> > > exciting to me".
> > 
> > Seeing as you are the one that is apparently bothered by the misnomer,
> > it follows that you would be the one submitting a patch for this. Not
> > that it would be accepted though, I don't see much point in renaming
> > functions and breaking drivers just because of a slightly bad name. The
> > io schedulers are all called foo-iosched.c, it's only the simple core
> > api that uses the 'elevator' description.
> 
> Why not just rename the kernel option "elevator" to "iosched" ?
> 
> --- elevator.c  2005-09-20 15:26:19.000000000 +0200
> +++ elevator.c.iosched  2005-09-20 15:27:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
>         return 0;
>  }
> 
> -__setup("elevator=", elevator_setup);
> +__setup("iosched=", elevator_setup);
> 
>  int elevator_init(request_queue_t *q, char *name)
>  {

Because I know at least SUSE uses this name for setting a different io
scheduler on boot. And there are users out there that have added the
options to their boot loader config.

So let me repeat - we are not going to break any existing setups for no
good reason. End of discussion.

-- 
Jens Axboe