On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 27/10/17 14:25, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> It is indeed tough to juggle this with the pressure to "upstream
>> first" the BFQ scheduler policy that we are working on in Linaro
>> to increase interactivity. We need to enable this on devices
>
On 27/10/17 14:25, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Hunter, Adrian
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Adrian Hunter
>
>>> What I mean is that the CQE code will likely look better on top of these
>>> refactorings.
>>>
>>> But as I say it is a matter of taste. I j
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Hunter, Adrian wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Adrian Hunter
>> What I mean is that the CQE code will likely look better on top of these
>> refactorings.
>>
>> But as I say it is a matter of taste. I just love the looks of my own code as
>> much as the
artlomiej Zolnierkiewicz ; Paolo Valente
> ; Avri Altman
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12 v4] multiqueue for MMC/SD
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Adrian Hunter
> wrote:
> > On 26/10/17 15:57, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> In my opinion this is also a better fit for co
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 26/10/17 15:57, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> I have now worked on it for more than a year. I was side
>> tracked to clean up some code, move request allocation to
>> be handled by the block layer, delete bounce buffer handling
>> and refactori
On 26/10/17 15:57, Linus Walleij wrote:
> This switches the MMC/SD stack over to unconditionally
> using the multiqueue block interface for block access.
> This modernizes the MMC/SD stack and makes it possible
> to enable BFQ scheduling on these single-queue devices.
>
> This is the v4 version of
