From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753425AbaFXVrO (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:47:14 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:65429 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752014AbaFXVrN (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:47:13 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,540,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="562849401" Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:47:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Keith Busch X-X-Sender: vmware@localhost.localdom To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Matias_Bj=F8rling?= cc: Keith Busch , Matthew Wilcox , "Sam Bradshaw (sbradshaw)" , Jens Axboe , Ming Lei , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , linux-nvme Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] NVMe: convert to blk-mq In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1402661396-19207-1-git-send-email-m@bjorling.me> <1402661396-19207-2-git-send-email-m@bjorling.me> <53A9CF5F.6040806@bjorling.me> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1839136328-1403646432=:4699" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1839136328-1403646432=:4699 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Matias Bjørling wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Keith Busch wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Matias Bjorling wrote: >>> Den 16-06-2014 17:57, Keith Busch skrev: >>>> >>>> This latest is otherwise stable on my dev machine. >>> >>> May I add an Acked-by from you? >> >> Totally up to Willy, but my feeling is "not just yet". I see the value >> this driver provides, but I would need to give this to a customer and >> hear their results before adding an "ack". It maybe a couple more weeks >> before they'll be able to try it. > > I was hoping to get an OK before that, to make sure it is picked up > for the 3.17 release. > > Should I pack it up in a specific way to help it along? I think what you're doing is the right way to go. I trust you removed the test code from your next iteration, and this does pass my tests on my machine... I was just hoping to hear what some other people with better macro level benchmarking abilities would say. So okay, you can put my "Acked-by" on this, but I don't have all the performance numbers yet. --8323328-1839136328-1403646432=:4699--