On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 07:58:22AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > While we're at the topic: > > Can't we use the same names for legacy and mq scheduler? > It's quite an unnecessary complication to have > 'noop', 'deadline', and 'cfq' for legacy, but 'none' and 'mq-deadline' > for mq. If we could use 'noop' and 'deadline' for mq, too, the existing > settings or udev rules will continue to work and we wouldn't get any > annoying and pointless warnings here...
I mentioned this to Jens a little while ago but I didn't feel strongly enough to push the issue. I also like this idea -- it makes the transition to blk-mq a little more transparent.
