Re: cli/sti removal from linux-2.5.29/drivers/ide?
Marcin Dalecki (email@example.com)
Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:12:03 +0200
Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Martin Dalecki wrote:
>>Adam J. Richter wrote:
>>> That said, I think all the "lock group" logic in drivers/ide
>>>may be useless, and it would be pretty straightforward to delete all
>>>that code, have ata_channel->lock be a lock rather than a pointer to one,
>>>and have it be initialized before that first call to ch->tuneproc, in
>>>which case we could just have interrupts off and ch->lock held in all
>>>cases when ch->tuneproc is called. I did not want to do this in my patch,
>>>because I wanted to keep my patch as small as possible, but perhaps it
>>>would be worth doing now just to simplify the rules for calling ch->tuneproc.
>>Not quite. It's not that easy becouse the same lock is used by the BIO
>>layer to synchronize between for example master and slave devices.
> Master and slave devices share the same channel, so
> master->channel == slave->channel
> &master->channel->lock == &slave->channel->lock
> So their queue->lock pointer would continue to point to
> the same lock: &channel->lock.
>>There are other problems with this but right now you can hardly do
>>something about it.
> I'd be intersted in knowing what one of those other problems
> is. Otherwise, I don't understand why I can't eliminate the "lock
> group" stuff.
Please have a look at the usage of the QUEU_FLAG_STOPPED
in the reuquest_queue struct. Lock is shared -> flag guaring
it is not. Just one example. *But* if you can make the
whole noting of shared locks go away -> then go ahead for it.
I would be glad to see it working.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/