Comment 391 for bug 620074
Revision history for this message
|
|
#391 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
4d1350f
(Get the code!)
It IS the proper backport. I'm the author and maintainer of CFQ, I should know... I would generally advise against using patches from people who don't know what they are doing, especially for data integrity important code like the IO scheduler. There could be data loss from bad patches.
The reason the 2.6.30 and 2.6.29 patches are different is that the CFQ request dispatch mechanism is different in 2.6.30. As such there's no prev_cfqq to take into account, since we never dispatch from more than one cfqq in one round. You would need to take the prev_cfqq out of local function scope for it to have any meaning.
So, not to be rude, but the last thing this bug needs are more cooks or chefs asking people to test things. It's a huge mess already. For now the focus is making Thomas happy, since he's spent much time on this and has a reproducible (sort of) way of testing it. Once that is done, we can proceed to any other potential issues. Any comments not related to that exact issue will be ignored.