Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block/bfq: fix ifdef for CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED=y
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <3c87a84f-9fb2-2407-a5a3-723b314d8e58@applied-asynchrony.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:34:30 +0200
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <319AA9FF-48BD-40D9-A272-17C6BAFE917F@linaro.org>
References: <155386807826.3190.16175453392005064129.stgit@buzz>
 <c40b8d4a-c504-fdf4-0b96-64aaeb167435@applied-asynchrony.com>
 <5234a971-2b6a-47b1-0071-8f3bd07d9fc3@kernel.dk>
 <cf0dc6b2-6ecf-c895-6c21-8746700bdae4@applied-asynchrony.com>
 <6be15f08-dbb4-6b43-3d95-44044f1acdbc@kernel.dk>
 <3c87a84f-9fb2-2407-a5a3-723b314d8e58@applied-asynchrony.com>
To:     =?utf-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=C3=A4tte?= <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> Il giorno 29 mar 2019, alle ore 17:44, Holger Hoffst=C3=A4tte =
<holger@applied-asynchrony.com> ha scritto:
>=20
> On 3/29/19 5:15 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> Good catch! I run without group scheduling and therefore didn't =
notice these
>>>>> stray defines earlier. For 5.1 it should merge cleanly; adding =
this on top of
>>>>> the pending 5.2 BFQ patches required a small context fixup in hunk =
#1 due to
>>>>> "block, bfq: do not idle for lowest-weight queues".
>>>>=20
>>>> I'm hesitant to apply this, since the group scheduling stuff has =
obviously never
>>>> been tested.
>>>=20
>>> This is simply a regression in 5.1 caused by 73d58118498b - nothing =
else,
>>> and as such this fix needs to go into 5.1 as well. I'm sure Paolo =
will agree.
>>> What you so ominously  call "the group scheduling stuff" has been =
there and
>>> shipping in mainline since day 1 of the BFQ merge, and it works fine =
in 5.0.
>> If that's the case (I didn't check how far back it went), then yes, =
it should
>> of course go into 5.1.
>=20
> Yay.
>=20
>> The ominous nature of my reply I'll chalk up to your interpretation
>=20
> Fair enough ;)
>=20
> A more interesting question is why upstream uses undefined defines
> for patches. That's a first-rate self-grenade if I've ever seen one,
> and obviously something that is easily missed. Paolo?
>=20

Paolo feels a little bit ashamed for this mistake :)

This horrible typo may also be the cause of the crashes recently
reported on this list.  I've just asked to try this fix:
=
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/626EAE58-63C1-4ABA-9040-9D9A61F74A0D@l=
inaro.org/T/

And yes, I agree that this fix should be applied to 5.1.  Thank you
Konstantin for spotting and removing this bomb.

Thanks,
Paolo

> -h