From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [git patch] atang tree: fix 2.6.32 SSD performance regression Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:17:01 +0100 Message-ID: <201002231317.01128.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <201002222224.35860.bzolnier@gmail.com> <20100223062324.GI1025@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f219.google.com ([209.85.220.219]:63342 "EHLO mail-fx0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752539Ab0BWMVI (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:21:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100223062324.GI1025@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Benjamin S." On Tuesday 23 February 2010 07:23:24 am Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22 2010, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > DISCLAIMER: the fact of getting patches merged into atang tree means > > that from now on they will be getting updates for changes happening > > in atang tree and it should not be treated as an indication regarding > > decisions taken by 'upstream' kernel trees > > > > > > Fix 2.6.32 regression bringing back the desired SSD performance. > > > > [ 'upstream' may want to wait for a proper resolution, for atang tree > > performance of big non-ATA boxes owned by a very few people is not > > of such a big concern as a major regression on a commodity hardware ] > > What is the point of this, other than continuing your past history of > political tirades? I worry that you may be reading too much into it -- I don't use Linus' tree or linux-next tree any longer so the next kernel I would see fix for the issue is most likely 2.6.34 and there is a little point from my personal perspective in waiting for such long time.. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz