Re: IDE 96 and __ata_end_request()

• Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] simplify networking fcntl"
• Previous message: George France: "Re: [OT] /proc/cpuinfo output from some arch"
• In reply to: Thunder from the hill: "(no subject)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just a small question about IDE 96: in __ata_end_request(), we do
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(ch->lock, flags);
>
> BUG_ON(!(rq->flags & REQ_STARTED));
>
> Shouldn't we rather flip these two, or much rather move
> spin_lock_irqsave() even more down, below
>
> if (!nr_secs)
> nr_secs = rq->hard_cur_sectors;
>
> since it hasn't got any use to hold a spin lock until the udma_enable &
> co.? However, I'd at least move it below the BUG_ON().
>
> Regards,
> Thunder

We can move spin_lock_irqsave() down, below if (!nr_secs), thanks.

Regards

--
Bartlomiej
-
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/

• Next message: Andi Kleen: "Re: [PATCH] simplify networking fcntl"
• Previous message: George France: "Re: [OT] /proc/cpuinfo output from some arch"
• In reply to: Thunder from the hill: "(no subject)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 07 2002 - 22:00:18 EST