Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 5.2-rc4

From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block fixes for 5.2-rc4
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 04:15:27 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ebfb27a3-23e2-3ad5-a6b3-5f8262fb9ecb@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whca9riMqYn6WoQpuq9ehQ5KfBvBb4iVZ314JSfvcgy9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/9/19 10:06 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 11:00 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, the concept/idea goes back a few months and was discussed with
>> the cgroup folks. But I totally agree that the implementation could
>> have been cleaner, especially at this point in time.
>>
>> I'm fine with you reverting those two patches for 5.2 if you want to,
>> and the BFQ folks can do this more cleanly for 5.3.
> 
> I don't think the code is _broken_, and I don't think the link_name
> thing is wrong. So no point in reverting unless we see more issues.
> 
> I just wish it had been done differently, both from the patch details
> standpoint, but also in making sure the cgroup people were aware (and
> maybe they were, but it certainly didn't show up in the commit).
> 
> So I think an incremental patch like the attached would make the code
> easier to understand (I really do mis-like random boolean flags being
> passed around that change behavior in undocumented and non-obvious
> ways), but I'd also want to make sure that Tejun & co are all on board
> and know about it..
> 
> I'm sure this happens a lot, but during the rc series I just end up
> *looking* at details like this a lot more, when I see changes outside
> of a subsystem directory.
> 
> Tejun&co, we're talking about commit 54b7b868e826 ("cgroup: let a
> symlink too be created with a cftype file") which didn't have any sign
> of you guys being aware of it or having acked it.

I talked to Tejun about this offline, and he's not a huge fan of the
symlink. So let's revert this for now, and Paolo can do this properly
for 5.3 instead.

Sorry for the confusion! Please pull the below.

  git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git tags/for-linus-20190610

----------------------------------------------------------------
Jens Axboe (1):
      cgroup/bfq: revert bfq.weight symlink change

 block/bfq-cgroup.c          |  6 ++----
 include/linux/cgroup-defs.h |  3 ---
 kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c      | 33 ++++-----------------------------
 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

-- 
Jens Axboe