From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:07:27 -0800 From: Omar Sandoval To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Jens Axboe , Paolo Valente , Tejun Heo , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX] block: make elevator_get robust against cross blk/blk-mq choice Message-ID: <20170214070727.GA19880@vader> References: <20170213210107.4848-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org> <20170213210107.4848-2-paolo.valente@linaro.org> <20170213220900.GA11052@vader.DHCP.thefacebook.com> <89b98d59-fcae-6b13-a6a1-6fe62967929d@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 07:58:22AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > While we're at the topic: > > Can't we use the same names for legacy and mq scheduler? > It's quite an unnecessary complication to have > 'noop', 'deadline', and 'cfq' for legacy, but 'none' and 'mq-deadline' > for mq. If we could use 'noop' and 'deadline' for mq, too, the existing > settings or udev rules will continue to work and we wouldn't get any > annoying and pointless warnings here... I mentioned this to Jens a little while ago but I didn't feel strongly enough to push the issue. I also like this idea -- it makes the transition to blk-mq a little more transparent.