Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Jun 2003 06:35:30 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |