On 25 Apr 2003, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 13:52, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > If you add REQ_DRIVE_INTERNAL, and kill the other ones I mentioned, fine
> > > with me then.
> > >
> > > rq->flags & REQ_DRIVE_INTERNAL
> > > rq->cmd == PM
> > > pm stuf
> > > rq->cmd = taskfile
> > > taskfile
> > >
> > > etc. Make sense?
> > As I just wrote, I'd rather go the whole way then and break up flags
> > (which is a very bad name btw) into req_type & req_subtype, though
> > that would mean a bit of driver fixing....
> Also, I noticed that my patch has a nice bug in the resume path, I
> use ide_preempt, which doesn't wait for the request to complete,
> but the request & struct state are allocated on the stack... ouch...
> It would be interesting to not wait for completion of the resume
> still here, there's no reason why resume of the disk can't be done
> asynchronously since we only release the request queue once completed,
> so I probably need to allocate the suspend request and release it from
> Also, having a separate structure pointed to by ->special only makes
> this more complicated, there are plenty of fields in struct request
> that I could indeed use for my state information (like the cmd stuff)
Why can't we simply change ide_do_drive_command() to take extra
flag specifing wait/do not wait and use it for ide_preempt?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com 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 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:21 EST