From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mmc: block: Add write packing control Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:12:54 -0400 Message-ID: <87629qkvgp.fsf@octavius.laptop.org> References: <1338576911-17089-1-git-send-email-merez@codeaurora.org> <1338576911-17089-2-git-send-email-merez@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:55839 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751361Ab2GNTNA (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:13:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Muthu Kumar's message of "Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:21:49 -0700") Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Muthu Kumar Cc: merez@codeaurora.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, DOCUMENTATION , open list Hi, On Wed, Jun 13 2012, Muthu Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM, wrote: >> >> On Mon, June 11, 2012 5:28 pm, Muthu Kumar wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Muthu Kumar wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Maya Erez wrote: >>>>> trigger >>>>> the packing can be configured via sysfs by writing the required value >>>>> to: >>>>> /sys/block//num_wr_reqs_to_start_packing. >>>>> The trigger for disabling the write packing is fetching a read request. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If it is applicable only to MMC why do we have this sysfs attr for all >>>> block devices? >>> >>> Just to be clear, please create a directory, say mmc, under >>> /sys/block// and create the attr inside that. >>> >>> You can refer to dm (dm-sysfs.c) for sample implementation. >> I understand why you think it would be best to distinguish the MMC >> specific attribute from the general block devices attributes. >> However, since this attribute is created only for the MMC block device, >> other block devices won't be aware of it. > > I understand its created by the MMC code so will not be there for > other block devices. But having the device specific attributes inside > one directory is better/cleaner. And since we are already > following that model for other devices, why not follow that for MMC > also? I've already replied to a later version of the patch, but just to get this comment in at the appropriate point of the discussion as well: Even though it would result in a cleaner sysfs, I don't want to do this now because it will break userspace scripts that are depending on the current locations of these attributes. Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child