lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] IDE Power Management, try 2
On Thu, Jun 05 2003, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > Jens, Bart, what do you think ? Should I add pm_step & pm_state to
> > struct request ? Do the "extended taskfile structure" thing ? Or just
> > keep things like they are in this new patch and forget about carrying
> > the PM state value ?
>
> I think extending struct request is the way to go,
> pm_step & pm_state or even pointer to rq_pm_struct.

Agree

> > I also added another rq->flags bit for requests forced at the head of
> > the queue with ide_preempt. This is typically for sense requests done
> > by ide-cd (though I also spotted a user in the tcq stuff). I need that
> > to make sure that if such a request ever happens to be pushed in front
> > of the current PM request (with the drive->blocked flag already set),
> > we don't enter an endless loop, fetching that new request and dropping
> > it right away because we only accept PM requests from the queue once
> > the drive is suspended.
>
> Jens, I think generic version of ide_do_drive_cmd() would be useful for
> other block devices, what do you think?

Yes very much so, scsi_ioctl also basically implements part of this
functionality.

--
Jens Axboe

-
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 13:36    [W:0.099 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site