Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel

Lorenzo Allegrucci
2005-09-20T13:31:00Z

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)
{