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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 14:39:48 +0200
From:   Adrian Hunter <>
To:     Linus Walleij <>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <>,
        linux-mmc <>,
        linux-block <>,
        linux-kernel <>,
        Bough Chen <>,
        Alex Lemberg <>,
        Mateusz Nowak <>,
        Yuliy Izrailov <>,
        Jaehoon Chung <>,
        Dong Aisheng <>,
        Das Asutosh <>,
        Zhangfei Gao <>,
        Sahitya Tummala <>,
        Harjani Ritesh <>,
        Venu Byravarasu <>,
        Shawn Lin <>,
        Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V13 04/10] mmc: block: Add CQE support

On 09/11/17 14:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <> 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?

Never said we should keep it around.  As soon as blk-mq is ready and tested,
delete it.

>>> 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?

Don't need non-CQE mmc blk-mq support for CQE support.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists