Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel

Jens Axboe
2005-09-20T13:41:32Z

On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 September 2005 13:42, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > >>The name for one. There is no elevator algorithm anywhere in it. There
> > > >>is a least block number first algorithm that was called an elevator, but
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Well the terminology changed to "io scheduler" now, however the
> > > >residual "elevator" name found in places doesn't cause anyone
> > > >any problems and there isn't much reason to change it other than
> > > >the desire to break things.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Did you really say that? I mean, come on, can't you at least manage a
> > > "well, it ought to get changed but I am busy with something more
> > > exciting to me".
> >
> > Seeing as you are the one that is apparently bothered by the misnomer,
> > it follows that you would be the one submitting a patch for this. Not
> > that it would be accepted though, I don't see much point in renaming
> > functions and breaking drivers just because of a slightly bad name. The
> > io schedulers are all called foo-iosched.c, it's only the simple core
> > api that uses the 'elevator' description.
>
> Why not just rename the kernel option "elevator" to "iosched" ?
>
> --- elevator.c 2005-09-20 15:26:19.000000000 +0200
> +++ elevator.c.iosched 2005-09-20 15:27:11.000000000 +0200
> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
> return 0;
> }
>
> -__setup("elevator=", elevator_setup);
> +__setup("iosched=", elevator_setup);
>
> int elevator_init(request_queue_t *q, char *name)
> {

Because I know at least SUSE uses this name for setting a different io
scheduler on boot. And there are users out there that have added the
options to their boot loader config.

So let me repeat - we are not going to break any existing setups for no
good reason. End of discussion.

--
Jens Axboe