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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] block, bfq: remove bfq prefix from cgroups filenames
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        noreply-spamdigest via bfq-iosched 
        <bfq-iosched@googlegroups.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190909073117.20625-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
 <80C56C11-DA21-4036-9006-2F459ACE9A8C@linaro.org>
 <c67c4d4b-ee56-85c1-5b94-7ae1704918b6@kernel.dk>
 <1F3898DA-C61F-4FA7-B586-F0FA0CAF5069@linaro.org>
 <20190916151643.GC3084169@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <64329DDB-FFF4-4709-83B1-39D5E6BF6AB6@linaro.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <91deff5b-4a0d-a7ef-8bb2-7e7e5dad767b@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 10:01:40 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <64329DDB-FFF4-4709-83B1-39D5E6BF6AB6@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/16/19 9:21 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> 
> 
>> Il giorno 16 set 2019, alle ore 17:16, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> ha scritto:
>>
>> Hello, Paolo.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 05:07:29PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> Tejun, could you put your switch-off-io-cost code into a standalone
>>> patch, so that I can put it together with this one in a complete
>>> series?
>>
>> It was more of a proof-of-concept / example, so the note in the email
>> that the code is free to be modified / used any way you see fit.  That
>> said, if you like it as it is, I can surely prep it as a standalone
>> patch.
>>
> 
> AFAICT your proposal contains no evident error.  Plus, no one seems to
> have complained about the idea (regardless from the exact
> implementation).  So I guess the best next step is to go for it.

Not filling me with a lot of confidence that you actually tested it?

-- 
Jens Axboe