From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] block, bfq: remove bfq prefix from cgroups filenames Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:01:40 -0600 Message-ID: <91deff5b-4a0d-a7ef-8bb2-7e7e5dad767b@kernel.dk> References: <20190909073117.20625-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org> <80C56C11-DA21-4036-9006-2F459ACE9A8C@linaro.org> <1F3898DA-C61F-4FA7-B586-F0FA0CAF5069@linaro.org> <20190916151643.GC3084169@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> <64329DDB-FFF4-4709-83B1-39D5E6BF6AB6@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BEJp88C2i8e+N1eeCwl/bIylkv3ygkyUoC1HYN2SV/k=; b=jhfxILuEU5LSCsXnCz+qhXGXW+5xTSEXtoXYBOnG0tgqgkC8QZkpPUuxQS62iaEG8G lT+fOZdcERuiq+rmr7NKKowWHPu1M3Nlu66ab6zYsjKUrb1NfoiBR4+pGdYnWyXPH9ia n72cJDV1heSbw50qfUMyU8NJuMBHfd7NNfFemrdfpdYGV14gqqhLmCvweCBP5OZh0Eid +tex2GW5MJvYVr4jZm8KmWW4oUqRExEUbwAwIJp6twGSL36gZnm0rNMmHBRrI4tzbdag NGG8To8FUUqrnZkyiDoHUAbv71m5kZ38+aZMFOph6Txy+3qAiacUbGFD9gw64AHhFR/A T/VA== In-Reply-To: <64329DDB-FFF4-4709-83B1-39D5E6BF6AB6@linaro.org> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Paolo Valente , Tejun Heo Cc: linux-block , linux-kernel , Ulf Hansson , Linus Walleij , noreply-spamdigest via bfq-iosched , Oleksandr Natalenko , cgroups@vger.kernel.org On 9/16/19 9:21 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > > >> Il giorno 16 set 2019, alle ore 17:16, Tejun Heo ha scritto: >> >> Hello, Paolo. >> >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 05:07:29PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >>> Tejun, could you put your switch-off-io-cost code into a standalone >>> patch, so that I can put it together with this one in a complete >>> series? >> >> It was more of a proof-of-concept / example, so the note in the email >> that the code is free to be modified / used any way you see fit. That >> said, if you like it as it is, I can surely prep it as a standalone >> patch. >> > > AFAICT your proposal contains no evident error. Plus, no one seems to > have complained about the idea (regardless from the exact > implementation). So I guess the best next step is to go for it. Not filling me with a lot of confidence that you actually tested it? -- Jens Axboe