Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 12 May 2023 07:02:15 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Ed Tsai <ed.tsai@mediatek.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
        stanley.chu@mediatek.com, peter.wang@mediatek.com,
        chun-hung.wu@mediatek.com, alice.chao@mediatek.com,
        powen.kao@mediatek.com, naomi.chu@mediatek.com,
        wsd_upstream@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ufs: don't use the fair tag sharings
Message-ID: <ZF5G5ztMng8Xbd1W@infradead.org>
References: <20230509065230.32552-1-ed.tsai@mediatek.com>
 <20230509065230.32552-3-ed.tsai@mediatek.com>
 <ZF0K7A6G2cYBjSgn@infradead.org>
 <aa9af9ae-62a4-6469-244c-b5d9106bb044@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aa9af9ae-62a4-6469-244c-b5d9106bb044@acm.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 08:38:04AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> For which devices is the fair sharing algorithm useful? As far as I know the
> legacy block layer did not have an equivalent of the fair sharing algorithm
> and I'm not aware of any complaints about the legacy block layer regarding
> to fairness. This is why I proposed in January to remove the fair sharing
> code entirely. See also https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20230103195337.158625-1-bvanassche@acm.org/.

Because the old code did not do tag allocation itself?  Either way I
don't think a "I'll opt out for a random driver" is the proper approach
when you think it's not needed.  Especially not without any data
explaining why just that driver is a special snowflake.