Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:35:50 +0300 | From | Alexander Atanasov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] IDE Power Management try 1 |
| |
Hello,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> The point is to pipe the power management requests through the request > queue for proper locking. Since those requests involve several > operations that have to be tied together with the queue beeing locked > for further 'user' requests, they are implemented as a state machine > with specific callbacks in the subdrivers > [cut] > > One thing that should probably be cleaned up is the difference between > the suspend and the resume request. I didn't want to implement 2 > different request bits to avoid using too much of that bit-space, and > because most of the core handling is the same. So right now, I carry in > the special structure attached to the request, 2 fields. An int > indicating if we are doing a suspend or a resume op, and an int that is > the actual state machine step.
> ===== include/linux/blkdev.h 1.100 vs edited ===== > --- 1.100/include/linux/blkdev.h Sun Apr 20 18:20:10 2003 > +++ edited/include/linux/blkdev.h Thu Apr 24 14:30:50 2003 > @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ > __REQ_DRIVE_CMD, > __REQ_DRIVE_TASK, > __REQ_DRIVE_TASKFILE, > + __REQ_POWER_MANAGEMENT, > __REQ_NR_BITS, /* stops here */ > };
What about this - add __REQ_DRIVE_INTERNAL, and carry args in rq->cmd[16] [0] = PM, [1] = SUSPEND/RESUME, [2]= STATE ? IDE can use it for power managment, error handling (do not do it from interrupt context, but queue it), may be more. This way it would really makes things a bit better with the complicated IDE locking. SCSI and probably other block devices can benefit from this internal requests too, so the bit is not wasted.
-- have fun, alex
- 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/
| |