From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Xuewei Zhang <xueweiz@google.com>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
maze@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: sd: Contribute to randomness when running rotational device
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 18:42:10 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180906224210.GK5098@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1536272873.26747.11.camel@acm.org>
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:27:53PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> Although this patch looks fine to me, seeing this patch makes me wonder
> whether the default should be changed (QUEUE_FLAG_MQ_DEFAULT) instead of
> modifying the sd driver. Can anyone remind me why QUEUE_FLAG_MQ_DEFAULT does
> not include QUEUE_FLAG_ADD_RANDOM?
There was a discussion about a number of *years* ago; blk-mq has been
baking for a very long time. In the early days of block_mq, the
overwhelming percentage of the users of blk-mq where those who were
using PCIe attached flash. So when, I raised this question, the
argument was that SSD users have no entropy. Which I agree with; but
now that blk-mq is the default, and hard drives are using blk-mq, it's
time for a patch like Xuewei's.
Cheers,
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-06 22:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-06 20:37 [PATCH] scsi: sd: Contribute to randomness when running rotational device Xuewei Zhang
2018-09-06 22:27 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-09-06 22:42 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o [this message]
2018-09-06 23:03 ` Xuewei Zhang
2018-09-08 4:06 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-09-09 11:52 ` Ming Lei
2018-09-14 5:05 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2018-09-17 6:58 ` Martin K. Petersen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180906224210.GK5098@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=adityakali@google.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=groeck@chromium.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=xueweiz@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox