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 0/6] block, bfq: series of fixes, and not only, for
 some recently reported issues
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bfq-iosched@googlegroups.com, oleksandr@natalenko.name,
        patdung100@gmail.com, cevich@redhat.com
References: <20200131092409.10867-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <f0480d87-41a3-c056-854e-e480461bbd96@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jan 2020 21:48:47 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200131092409.10867-1-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 1/31/20 2:24 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> these patches are mostly fixes for the issues reported in [1, 2]. All
> patches have been publicly tested in the dev version of BFQ.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paolo
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767539
> [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205447
> 
> Paolo Valente (6):
>   block, bfq: do not plug I/O for bfq_queues with no proc refs
>   block, bfq: do not insert oom queue into position tree
>   block, bfq: get extra ref to prevent a queue from being freed during a
>     group move
>   block, bfq: extend incomplete name of field on_st
>   block, bfq: get a ref to a group when adding it to a service tree
>   block, bfq: clarify the goal of bfq_split_bfqq()
> 
>  block/bfq-cgroup.c  | 12 ++++++++++--
>  block/bfq-iosched.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  block/bfq-iosched.h |  3 ++-
>  block/bfq-wf2q.c    | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

I wish some of these had been sent sooner, they really should have been
sent in a few weeks ago. Just took a quick look at the bug reports, and
at least one of the bugs mentions looks like it had a fix available 2
months ago. Have they been in -next? They are all marked as bug fixes,
should they have stable tags? All of them, some of them?

-- 
Jens Axboe