Il giorno 18 set 2019, alle ore 17:19, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] ha scritto:

Hello,

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:18:50AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

A solution that both fulfills userspace request and doesn't break
anything for hypothetical users of the current interface already made
it to mainline, and Linus liked it too.  It is:

Linus didn't like it.  The implementation was a bit nasty.  That was
why it became a subject in the first place.

quoted

19e9da9e86c4 ("block, bfq: add weight symlink to the bfq.weight cgroup parameter")

But it was then reverted on Tejun's request to do exactly what we
don't want do any longer now:
cf8929885de3 ("cgroup/bfq: revert bfq.weight symlink change")

Note that the interface was wrong at the time too.

quoted

So, Jens, Tejun, can we please just revert that revert?

I think presenting both io.weight and io.bfq.weight interfaces are
probably the best course of action at this point but why does it have
to be a symlink?  What's wrong with just creating another file with
the same backing function?

I think a symlink would be much clearer for users, given the confusion
already caused by two names for the same parameter.  But let's hear
others' opinion too.

Thanks,
Paolo

Thanks.

-- 
tejun