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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 15:20:21 +0200 From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Bough Chen <haibo.chen@....com>, Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>, Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@...el.com>, Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@...disk.com>, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>, Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>, Das Asutosh <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>, Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...il.com>, Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>, Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@...eaurora.org>, Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 04/10] mmc: block: Add CQE support On 08/11/17 11:00, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote: > >> @@ -2188,11 +2327,18 @@ enum mmc_issued mmc_blk_mq_issue_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req) >> return MMC_REQ_FAILED_TO_START; >> } >> return MMC_REQ_FINISHED; >> + case MMC_ISSUE_DCMD: >> case MMC_ISSUE_ASYNC: >> switch (req_op(req)) { >> + case REQ_OP_FLUSH: >> + ret = mmc_blk_cqe_issue_flush(mq, req); >> + break; >> case REQ_OP_READ: >> case REQ_OP_WRITE: >> - ret = mmc_blk_mq_issue_rw_rq(mq, req); >> + if (mq->use_cqe) >> + ret = mmc_blk_cqe_issue_rw_rq(mq, req); >> + else >> + ret = mmc_blk_mq_issue_rw_rq(mq, req); >> break; >> default: >> WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > > This and other bits gives me the feeling CQE is now actually ONLY > working on the MQ path. I was not allowed to support non-mq. > > That is good. We only add new functionality on the MQ path, > yay! > > But this fact (only abailable iff MQ==true) should at least be > mentioned in the commit message I think? Why? CQE is MQ only. > > So why not ditch the old block layer or at least make MQ default? CQE is MQ only. > > When you keep it like this people have to reconfigure > their kernel to enable MQ before they see the benefits of MQ+CQE > combined, I think that should rather be the default experience. Not at all. I guess you are confusing the legacy mmc with CQE. CQE is not a layer on top of legacy mmc. It is an alternative to legacy mmc. CQE does not sit on top of the legacy mmc blk-mq support. You don't have to enable legacy mmc blk-mq support to use CQE.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists