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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190917165148.19146-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
 <20190917165148.19146-3-paolo.valente@linaro.org> <20190917213209.GK3084169@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190917213209.GK3084169@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:09:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrHeEb77F-U3W1HdSj3_rrMyi66XCt73By3OoLOVa65bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "'Paolo Valente' via bfq-iosched" <bfq-iosched@googlegroups.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Tejun, Paolo,

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 23:32, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 06:51:48PM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > When bfq was merged into mainline, there were two I/O schedulers that
> > implemented the proportional-share policy: bfq for blk-mq and cfq for
> > legacy blk. bfq's interface files in the blkio/io controller have the
> > same names as cfq. But the cgroups interface doesn't allow two
> > entities to use the same name for their files, so for bfq we had to
> > prepend the "bfq" prefix to each of its files. However no legacy code
> > uses these modified file names. This naming also causes confusion, as,
> > e.g., in [1].
> >
> > Now cfq has gone with legacy blk, so there is no need any longer for
> > these prefixes in (the never used) bfq names. In view of this fact, this
> > commit removes these prefixes, thereby enabling legacy code to truly
> > use the proportional share policy in blk-mq.
>
> So, I wrote the iocost switching patch and don't have a strong
> interest in whether bfq prefix should get dropped or not.  However, I
> gotta point out that flipping interface this way is way out of the
> norm.
>
> In the previous release cycle, the right thing to do was dropping the
> bfq prefix but that wasn't possible because bfq's interface wasn't
> compatible at that point and didn't made to be compatible in time.

Sounds like we really should send those relevant patches for stable,
to set the correct ground. Then using a symlink, to make sure we don't
brake current ABI, right?

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe