On 24/10/17 10:39, Ulf Hansson wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

However, you have completely ignored mine, Linus and Bartlomiej's
comments about that we want the blkmq port being a separate patch(es)
and then make the CMDQ patches on top. This worries me, because it
seems like our messages don't reach you.

Rubbish!  I gave a very good reason for keeping the CQE code in - it is
designed to work together.  I also pointed out that it is trivial to see the
CQE code and that it is all '+' lines anyway.

You gave reasons, but none of us bought them.

quoted

But not one question in response!  Where is a single example of why it is
difficult like it is.  Where are the questions!  Not even a request for
documentation!  How I am supposed to know what you do or don't understand if
you don't ask any questions! There is no evidence that you guys have read a
single line!

I have and I have also tested it, finding it not working. As reported.

However, I have also told you that I am having a *hard time* to review
it, because it implements both blkmq and CMDQ in the same patch to
code changes get complex.

quoted

So, what are your plans for the patches?  What don't you understand?

I have told you this several time, so has Linus and Bartlomiej.

If you can split it up such the blkmq support comes first, then I can
review/test and pick it up.

I have done the split, but of course the code is just the same.