Re: [PATCH 7/7] ide: use queue lock instead of ide_lock when possible

[Elias Oltmanns]

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [PATCH] ide: use queue lock instead of ide_lock when possible
>
> This is just a preparation for future changes and there should be no
> functional changes caused by this patch since ide_lock is currently
> also used as queue lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
[...]
> Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
> +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
[...]
> @@ -1469,16 +1470,16 @@ out:
>  void ide_do_drive_cmd(ide_drive_t *drive, struct request *rq)
>  {
>  	ide_hwgroup_t *hwgroup = drive->hwif->hwgroup;
> +	struct request_queue *q = drive->queue;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	hwgroup->rq = NULL;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&ide_lock, flags);
> -	__elv_add_request(drive->queue, rq, ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT, 1);
> -	__generic_unplug_device(drive->queue);
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> +	__elv_add_request(q, rq, ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT, 1);
> +	__generic_unplug_device(q);

By the way, wouldn't blk_run_queue() be more appropriate here? It looks
to me as if blk_run_queue() was the thing intended for general usage by
low level drivers who don't know and care about schedulers, whereas the
usage of __generic_unplug_device() should mostly be restricted to the
block layer. On the other hand, there are other drivers in
drivers/block/ that use __generic_unplug_device(), so I may well be
wrong. Jens?

Regards,

Elias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/