lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V13 04/10] mmc: block: Add CQE support
From
Date
On 09/11/17 14:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.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.

Alright

>
>>> 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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-09 13:41    [W:0.071 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site