linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX] block: make elevator_get robust against cross blk/blk-mq choice

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:07:27 -0800
From:   Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
        linus.walleij@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX] block: make elevator_get robust against cross
 blk/blk-mq choice

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 07:58:22AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> While we're at the topic:
> 
> Can't we use the same names for legacy and mq scheduler?
> It's quite an unnecessary complication to have
> 'noop', 'deadline', and 'cfq' for legacy, but 'none' and 'mq-deadline'
> for mq. If we could use 'noop' and 'deadline' for mq, too, the existing
> settings or udev rules will continue to work and we wouldn't get any
> annoying and pointless warnings here...

I mentioned this to Jens a little while ago but I didn't feel strongly
enough to push the issue. I also like this idea -- it makes the
transition to blk-mq a little more transparent.