Messages in this thread | | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: pre-2.1.96-1 panic: Inactive in scsi_request_queueable | Date | 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
| |