On Wed, Jul 24 2002, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 24 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Jens, the same is in cciss.c.
> > > >Please remove locking from blk_stop_queue() (as you suggested) or intrduce
> > > >unlocking in request_functions.
> > > >
> > > Bartek I think the removal is just for reassertion that the
> > > locking is the problem. You can't remove it easly from
> > > blk_stop_queue() unless you make it mandatory that blk_stop_queue
> > > has to be run with the lock already held. Or in other words
> > > basically -> Don't use blk_stop_queue() outside of ->request_fn.
> >
> > Of couse Bart is advocating just making sure that every caller of
> > blk_stop_queue() _has_ the queue_lock before calling it, not removing
> > the locking there.
> >
> > --
> > Jens Axboe
>
> And I'm also advocating for __blk_start_queue() ideal for usage in
> ata_end_request(). And moving spin_lock scope to cover test_and_set_bit()
> in blk_start_queue() (for coherency and avoiding spurious calls to
> q->request_fn() ).
Feel free to send me the patch to compliment the __blk_stop_queue() part
(which is in axboe@master:/home/axboe/BK/linux-2.5-block, btw).
> However IDE_BUSY -> QUEUE_STOPPED_FLAG is braindamaged idea.
I agree.
-- 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 Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:16 EST