On 05/09/17 10:24, Ulf Hansson wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

I can send blk-mq support for legacy requests in a few days if you like, but
I want to hear a better explanation of why you are delaying CQE support.

That would be very nice, however be aware of that we are in the merge
window, so I am not picking new material for 4.14 from this point. I
assume you understand why.

Nope.  This is new functionality - doesn't affect anyone who doesn't have a
command queue engine.  Next to no chance of regressions.  Tested by several
in the community.  Substantially unchanged since February.  It is not even
very much code in the block driver.

Let me make it clear, once more - I don't want to maintain more hacks
in mmc block layer code.

This series add blkmq support, using a method (which may be considered
as intermediate) via a new change in patch1 - but only for the new CQE
path. That means the old legacy mmc block path is still there. So, for
the reason stated above - no thanks!

And where is your alternative.  When I pointed out you need a way to
arbitrate between internal partitions, you went silent again.

Can't have CQE without blk-mq but can't have blk-mq because you don't
understand it, is hardly acceptable.

quoted

quoted

Still, big changes is always nice to queue up early for a release
cycle. Let's aim for that!

You said that in February.  Never happened.  You said you wanted blk-mq, so
I waited to re-base on top, but it never appeared.

Yes, I want blkmq - and I believe I have explained why several times by now.

Unfortunate, blkmq just doesn't appear, we have to work on it - together.

If we are working on it together, how come you have never taken the time to
find out how blk-mq works?

quoted

quoted

Moreover, I am not delaying CQE, but really want it to be merged asap!
However, I am also having the role as a maintainer and the things that
comes with it. For example, I would like the community to reach
consensus around how to move forward with CQE, before I decide to pick
it up.

It has been more than 6 months.  That is enough time to wait for "consensus".

Normally it should be more than enough, on the other hand, it has
turned out this was more complex than we first thought.

Nonsense.  I have raised the issues time and again but there have never been
any replies.