Hi!
> > Well, it's all about how to actually route the changes and in general
> > whenever avoidable we try to avoid whole-sale code replacement
> > especially when most of the structural code is similar like in this
> > case. Gradually evolving cfq to bfq is likely to take more work but
> > I'm very positive that it'd definitely be a lot easier to merge the
> > changes that way and people involved, including the developers and
> > reviewers, would acquire a lot clearer picture of what's going on in
> > the process. For example, AFAICS, most of the heuristics added by
>
> Would it make sense to merge bfq first, _then_ turn cfq into bfq, then
> remove bfq?
>
> That way
>
> 1. Users like me would see improvements soon
>
> 2. BFQ would get more testing early.
Like this: I applied patch over today's git...
I only see last bits of panic...
Call trace:
__bfq_bfqq_expire
bfq_bfqq_expire
bfq_dispatch_requests
sci_request_fn
...
EIP: T.1839+0x26
Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
Shutting down cpus with NMI
...
Will retry.
Any ideas?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
