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;
Date:   Wed, 18 Sep 2019 08:19:48 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, bfq-iosched@googlegroups.com,
        oleksandr@natalenko.name, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block, bfq: delete "bfq" prefix from cgroup filenames
Message-ID: <20190918151948.GL3084169@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
References: <20190917165148.19146-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
 <20190917165148.19146-3-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
 <20190917213209.GK3084169@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
 <4D39D2FA-A487-4FAD-A67E-B90750CE0BD4@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D39D2FA-A487-4FAD-A67E-B90750CE0BD4@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 07:18:50AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> A solution that both fulfills userspace request and doesn't break
> anything for hypothetical users of the current interface already made
> it to mainline, and Linus liked it too.  It is:

Linus didn't like it.  The implementation was a bit nasty.  That was
why it became a subject in the first place.

> 19e9da9e86c4 ("block, bfq: add weight symlink to the bfq.weight cgroup parameter")
> 
> But it was then reverted on Tejun's request to do exactly what we
> don't want do any longer now:
> cf8929885de3 ("cgroup/bfq: revert bfq.weight symlink change")

Note that the interface was wrong at the time too.

> So, Jens, Tejun, can we please just revert that revert?

I think presenting both io.weight and io.bfq.weight interfaces are
probably the best course of action at this point but why does it have
to be a symlink?  What's wrong with just creating another file with
the same backing function?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun