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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:04:42 +0100 From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> 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 Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote: > On 08/11/17 11:00, Linus Walleij wrote: >> 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. Fair enough. >> 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 if you read what I say, I think the commit message should say that CQE is MQ only so that people know that CQE is MQ only. >> So why not ditch the old block layer or at least make MQ default? > > CQE is MQ only. Yeah? So why keep it around for everything else? >> 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. Now I am confused. I can't parse the last sentence. There is no such thing as legcay blk-mq? Yours, Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists