On Mon, Aug 06 2001, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > 774 spin_lock_irqsave(&io_request_lock, flags);
> > 775 rtn = SCpnt->host->hostt->eh_abort_handler(SCpnt);
> > 776 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&io_request_lock, flags);
> >
> > seems like a real shotgun approach. Get rid of the spinlock stuff, and
> > make sure that the abort handlers lock io_request_lock themselves if
> > they need it. Of course, this would require changes to all the scsi
> > drivers.
>
> Hrm... perhaps I could just unlock that spinlock and then re-lock it before
> returning. Anyone have a clue if this would work?
That would work -- stuff like the above is already scheduled for removal
for 2.5. Locking will be moved from the mid layer to the drivers
themselves.
-- Jens Axboe- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 07 2001 - 21:00:43 EST