Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES
On 2019/7/31 20:10, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Xiang, > > On 2019/7/31 15:11, Gao Xiang wrote: >> Hi Chao, >> >> On 2019/7/31 15:05, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote: CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES seems a runtime setting and users have no idea about the change in behaviour. Let's remove the setting currently and fold it into code, turn it into a module parameter if it's really needed. Suggested-by: David Sterba Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang >>> >>> It's fine to me, but I'd like to suggest to add this as a sys entry which >>> can be >>> more flexible for user to change. >> >> I think it can be added in the later version, the original view >> from David is that he had question how users using this option. >> >> Maybe we can use the default value and leave it to users who >> really need to modify this value (real requirement). > > I think we need to decide it in this version, otherwise it may face backward > compatibility issue if we change module argument to sys entry later. > > Maybe just leave it as an fixed macro is fine, since there is actually no > requirement on this. OK, will fix it --- leave the fixed macro. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > Thanks, > >> >> Thanks, >> Gao Xiang >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >> . >> ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES
Hi Xiang, On 2019/7/31 15:11, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On 2019/7/31 15:05, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote: >>> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES seems a runtime setting >>> and users have no idea about the change in behaviour. >>> >>> Let's remove the setting currently and fold it into code, >>> turn it into a module parameter if it's really needed. >>> >>> Suggested-by: David Sterba >>> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang >> >> It's fine to me, but I'd like to suggest to add this as a sys entry which >> can be >> more flexible for user to change. > > I think it can be added in the later version, the original view > from David is that he had question how users using this option. > > Maybe we can use the default value and leave it to users who > really need to modify this value (real requirement). I think we need to decide it in this version, otherwise it may face backward compatibility issue if we change module argument to sys entry later. Maybe just leave it as an fixed macro is fine, since there is actually no requirement on this. Thanks, > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > >> >> Thanks >> > . > ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES
Hi Chao, On 2019/7/31 15:05, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote: >> CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES seems a runtime setting >> and users have no idea about the change in behaviour. >> >> Let's remove the setting currently and fold it into code, >> turn it into a module parameter if it's really needed. >> >> Suggested-by: David Sterba >> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang > > It's fine to me, but I'd like to suggest to add this as a sys entry which can > be > more flexible for user to change. I think it can be added in the later version, the original view from David is that he had question how users using this option. Maybe we can use the default value and leave it to users who really need to modify this value (real requirement). Thanks, Gao Xiang > > Thanks > ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
Re: [PATCH 08/22] staging: erofs: kill CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES
On 2019/7/29 14:51, Gao Xiang wrote: > CONFIG_EROFS_FS_IO_MAX_RETRIES seems a runtime setting > and users have no idea about the change in behaviour. > > Let's remove the setting currently and fold it into code, > turn it into a module parameter if it's really needed. > > Suggested-by: David Sterba > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang It's fine to me, but I'd like to suggest to add this as a sys entry which can be more flexible for user to change. Thanks ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
