Re: pre-2.1.96-1 panic: Inactive in scsi_request_queueable
Keith Owens (kaos@ocs.com.au)
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 10:54:38 +1000
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:18:46 -0700 (PDT),
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote:
>No. The lock is not protecting any filesystem, it is _only_ protecting the
>actual IO request. It's quite ok to drop the lock, although I've told
>people who are worried about latency issues to no worry about those yet,
>as we have the bigger picture of correctness that is the first priority.
>
>You can drop the lock whenever you don't access any io-request lists, and
>when you aren't mucking around with any data structures (and aren't
>caching any data structure info).
Colour me confused :). If the lock can be dropped when we don't access
any io-request lists, why is it held on entry to dev->request_fn? If
it is safe to drop the lock during loopback, it should be safe to drop
it before any request_fn and reacquire only when needed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu