![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Lou Langholtz wrote: > . . . On the other hand I've been thinking that I might be able to > take advantage of the irq locked condition imposed by the > q->queue_lock and just use nbd_lock to replace q->queue_lock then. Al > and Andrew seem to have a much deeper understanding though for > spinlocking though so I'll defer to there comments on this idea (of > replacing lo->queue_lock by use of nbd_lock). This has the added > attraction of already having nbd_lock locked when in do_nbd_request.. . . Typo! Above should have read "just use nbd_lock to replace lo->queue_lock" (another spinlock_t per nbd_device). Anyways... would using the one nbd_lock to also protect the lo->queue_list work better than using the queue_lock per nbd_device I'm wondering. According to the prior discusions about spinlocks this should be better. I don't have a picture right now of wether that even works or not. Gotta run though, thanks! - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:36 [W:0.349 / U:0.040 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||