linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V10 0/8] block, bfq: extend bfq to support multi-actuator drives

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:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 17:10:42 +0000
From:   Arie van der Hoeven <arie.vanderhoeven@...gate.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
CC:     linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rory Chen <rory.c.chen@...gate.com>,
        Glen Valante <glen.valante@...aro.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 0/8] block, bfq: extend bfq to support multi-actuator
 drives

We understand being conservative but the code paths only impact on a product that is not yet in market.  This is version 10 spanning months with many gaps waiting on review.  It's an interesting case study.

-- Arie van der Hoeven

From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 7:43 AM
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>; linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; Arie van der Hoeven <arie.vanderhoeven@...gate.com>; Rory Chen <rory.c.chen@...gate.com>; Glen Valante <glen.valante@...aro.org>; Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V10 0/8] block, bfq: extend bfq to support multi-actuator drives

This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.

On 12/13/22 8:40?AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Hi Jens, Damien,
> can we consider this for 6.2?

No, it's too late to queue up for 6.2, even when it was posted on
Friday. Bigger changes like that should be in my tree at least a week
before the merge window opens, preferably two (or somewhere in between).

I already tagged the main 6.2 block changes on Friday, and the pull
request has been sent out.

--
Jens Axboe

Seagate Internal