linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] block/mq-deadline: Replace DD_PRIO_MAX with DD_PRIO

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAAWJmAahdw_nprJXni_2L-WgfVK=6pR-F7hW7Hj1fwhsi4p6mA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 09:17:05 +0800
From: Tao pilgrim <pilgrimtao@...il.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	chengkaitao <chengkaitao@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] block/mq-deadline: Replace DD_PRIO_MAX with DD_PRIO_COUNT

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 11:59 PM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> wrote:
>
> On 9/15/25 6:06 AM, chengkaitao wrote:
> > Remove redundant DD_PRIO_MAX and enum types, Move DD_PRIO_COUNT
> > into enum dd_prio{}, and similarly for DD_DIR_COUNT.
>
> Why has this patch been reposted? Last time it was posted I explained in
> detail that in my opinion all changes in this patch makes the code worse
> instead of better. Additionally, when a new version of a patch is
> posted, it should include a changelog. I don't see a changelog in this
> patch. Please drop this patch.
>
Regarding your comments on the previous patch, I have also provided a
detailed response. However, since I did not receive a reply for an extended
period, I am resubmitting it in hopes of continuing the discussion. This
patch is simply a repost with no substantial updates. The link to my previous
response is as follows.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAAWJmAbumBHVo-8neC+b8WqJzzLbWqARpc3vkBsgs9j08wh3kA@mail.gmail.com/

-- 
Yours,
Kaitao Cheng