lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH BUGFIX 0/6] block, bfq: series of fixes, and not only, for some recently reported issues
From
Date
On 1/31/20 2:24 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> these patches are mostly fixes for the issues reported in [1, 2]. All
> patches have been publicly tested in the dev version of BFQ.
>
> Thanks,
> Paolo
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767539
> [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205447
>
> Paolo Valente (6):
> block, bfq: do not plug I/O for bfq_queues with no proc refs
> block, bfq: do not insert oom queue into position tree
> block, bfq: get extra ref to prevent a queue from being freed during a
> group move
> block, bfq: extend incomplete name of field on_st
> block, bfq: get a ref to a group when adding it to a service tree
> block, bfq: clarify the goal of bfq_split_bfqq()
>
> block/bfq-cgroup.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> block/bfq-iosched.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> block/bfq-iosched.h | 3 ++-
> block/bfq-wf2q.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

I wish some of these had been sent sooner, they really should have been
sent in a few weeks ago. Just took a quick look at the bug reports, and
at least one of the bugs mentions looks like it had a fix available 2
months ago. Have they been in -next? They are all marked as bug fixes,
should they have stable tags? All of them, some of them?

--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-01 05:49    [W:0.062 / U:0.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site