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 BUGFIX V2 0/1] block, bfq: deschedule empty bfq_queues not
 referred by any process
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc:     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,
        tschubert@bafh.org, patdung100@gmail.com, cevich@redhat.com
References: <20191114093311.47877-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <0cb0a853-e036-9884-5681-f4617de5c662@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 14 Nov 2019 07:02:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191114093311.47877-1-paolo.valente@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 11/14/19 2:33 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> change from V1: added check to correctly work only on bfq-queues
> scheduled for service, and not on in-service bfq-queues (it makes no
> sense, and it creates inconsistencies, to deschedule an in-service
> bfq-queue).
> 
> Differently from V1, which was still under test when I submitted it,
> this version has already been tested, by those who reported V1's
> failures.

I'm a bit miffed that you'd send out a patch for an issue, this late
in the cycle, and then it not being tested at all. That's not very
confidence inspiring. I have applied this one, just letting you know
that that is not acceptable at all.

-- 
Jens Axboe