Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965013AbVITNlc (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:41:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965016AbVITNlc (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:41:32 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:48717 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965013AbVITNlb (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:41:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:41:16 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Lorenzo Allegrucci Cc: Hans Reiser , Nick Piggin , Alan Cox , thenewme91@gmail.com, Christoph Hellwig , Denis Vlasenko , chriswhite@gentoo.org, lkml , ReiserFS List , Nate Diller Subject: Re: I request inclusion of reiser4 in the mainline kernel Message-ID: <20050920134115.GN10845@suse.de> References: <200509180934.50789.chriswhite@gentoo.org> <432FC150.9020807@namesys.com> <20050920114253.GL10845@suse.de> <200509201530.01808.l.allegrucci@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509201530.01808.l.allegrucci@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2124 Lines: 54 On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote: > On Tuesday 20 September 2005 13:42, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20 2005, Hans Reiser wrote: > > > >>The name for one. There is no elevator algorithm anywhere in it. There > > > >>is a least block number first algorithm that was called an elevator, but > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >Well the terminology changed to "io scheduler" now, however the > > > >residual "elevator" name found in places doesn't cause anyone > > > >any problems and there isn't much reason to change it other than > > > >the desire to break things. > > > > > > > > > > > Did you really say that? I mean, come on, can't you at least manage a > > > "well, it ought to get changed but I am busy with something more > > > exciting to me". > > > > Seeing as you are the one that is apparently bothered by the misnomer, > > it follows that you would be the one submitting a patch for this. Not > > that it would be accepted though, I don't see much point in renaming > > functions and breaking drivers just because of a slightly bad name. The > > io schedulers are all called foo-iosched.c, it's only the simple core > > api that uses the 'elevator' description. > > Why not just rename the kernel option "elevator" to "iosched" ? > > --- elevator.c 2005-09-20 15:26:19.000000000 +0200 > +++ elevator.c.iosched 2005-09-20 15:27:11.000000000 +0200 > @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ > return 0; > } > > -__setup("elevator=", elevator_setup); > +__setup("iosched=", elevator_setup); > > int elevator_init(request_queue_t *q, char *name) > { Because I know at least SUSE uses this name for setting a different io scheduler on boot. And there are users out there that have added the options to their boot loader config. So let me repeat - we are not going to break any existing setups for no good reason. End of discussion. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/