2018-11-15 17:30 GMT+01:00, Jens Axboe :
> On 11/15/18 4:54 AM, Angelo Ruocco wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> I have rebased the patchset against the for-4.21/block branch, but I
>> can't test them properly because the compiling process has an error on
>> a different file. In particular:
>>
>> include/net
On 11/15/18 4:54 AM, Angelo Ruocco wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> I have rebased the patchset against the for-4.21/block branch, but I
> can't test them properly because the compiling process has an error on
> a different file. In particular:
>
> include/net/xfrm.h:1465:3 error: unknown type 'spruct'
> in
Hi.
On 15.11.2018 16:33, Angelo Ruocco wrote:
I have realized that I didn't clearly explain my actions. I did do a
rebase, but that is not the cause of the problem I reported. I mean,
this is enough to trigger the issue:
git add remote block [1]
git fetch block
git checkout for-4.21/block
make
Hi Jens,
I have rebased the patchset against the for-4.21/block branch, but I
can't test them properly because the compiling process has an error on
a different file. In particular:
include/net/xfrm.h:1465:3 error: unknown type 'spruct'
include/net/xfrm.h:1465:30 error: expected ':', ',', ';', '}
On 11/12/18 8:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 08:48:35AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/12/18 8:45 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> BTW, since this patch series is probably even more useful for older
>>> than for future kernels, might it make sense to also propose it for
>>> stab
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 08:48:35AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/12/18 8:45 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > BTW, since this patch series is probably even more useful for older
> > than for future kernels, might it make sense to also propose it for
> > stable/longterm kernels (provided that such a p
On 11/12/18 8:45 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> BTW, since this patch series is probably even more useful for older
> than for future kernels, might it make sense to also propose it for
> stable/longterm kernels (provided that such a possibility exists)?
That just not how things work, we don't put dif
> Il giorno 12 nov 2018, alle ore 16:35, Jens Axboe ha
> scritto:
>
> On 11/12/18 3:17 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Il giorno 12 nov 2018, alle ore 11:00, Oleksandr Natalenko
>>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On 12.11.2018 10:56, Paolo Valente wrote:
Hi Jens, Tejun, all,
about nine
On 11/12/18 3:17 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>
>> Il giorno 12 nov 2018, alle ore 11:00, Oleksandr Natalenko
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> On 12.11.2018 10:56, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> Hi Jens, Tejun, all,
>>> about nine months ago, we agreed on a solution for unifying the
>>> interface of the proportion
> Il giorno 12 nov 2018, alle ore 11:00, Oleksandr Natalenko
> ha scritto:
>
> On 12.11.2018 10:56, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Hi Jens, Tejun, all,
>> about nine months ago, we agreed on a solution for unifying the
>> interface of the proportional-share policy in blkio/io [1]. Angelo
>> and I f
On 12.11.2018 11:00, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
I thought all the legacy stuff including CFS et al. is going to be
removed in v4.21 completely…
Paolo, [1] and [2].
[1] http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=for-4.21/block
[2]
http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-4.21/bloc
On 12.11.2018 10:56, Paolo Valente wrote:
Hi Jens, Tejun, all,
about nine months ago, we agreed on a solution for unifying the
interface of the proportional-share policy in blkio/io [1]. Angelo
and I finally completed it. Let me briefly recall the problem and the
solution.
The current implemen
Forgot to CC Lennart, sorry.
> Il giorno 12 nov 2018, alle ore 10:56, Paolo Valente
> ha scritto:
>
> Hi Jens, Tejun, all,
> about nine months ago, we agreed on a solution for unifying the
> interface of the proportional-share policy in blkio/io [1]. Angelo
> and I finally completed it. Let m
Hi Jens, Tejun, all,
about nine months ago, we agreed on a solution for unifying the
interface of the proportional-share policy in blkio/io [1]. Angelo
and I finally completed it. Let me briefly recall the problem and the
solution.
The current implementation of cgroups doesn't allow two or more
14 matches
Mail list logo