On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Jul 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.
> >
> >
> > Yep, that how it should be only used.
> > However you are right these stop/start need some checking.
> >
> > About idea of using QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED as IDE_BUSY right now is no go
> > and will never be.
>
> Hold on please. Becouse if you think one step further ->
> not blocking blk_stop_queue() in do_request or more
> precisely at places where the IDE_BUSY get's set 8-) you suddenly get
> completely rid of it if you replace the "back-calls" to do_request() in
> ata_irq_request() and ide_timer_expiry() with blk_start_queue()...
> No direct manipulation whatsever.
If you think it is good idea, go for it, as I don't work on your 2.5 IDE
anymore. Game is over, I will start my tree (based on 2.4) soon.
Don't say later you haven't been warned.
-- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:16 EST