[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/12] libata: use IRQ expecting

    On 06/25/2010 11:48 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > My basic point is that you are implicitly changing the entire
    > ata_qc_complete() API, and associated underlying assumptions.
    > The existing assumption, since libata day #0, is that ata_qc_complete()
    > works entirely within the scope of a single qc -- thus enabling multiple
    > calls for a single controller interrupt. Your change greatly widens the
    > scope to an entire port.

    Yeah, I'm changing that and it actually reduces code.

    > This isn't just an issue with sata_mv, that was just the easy example I
    > remember off the top of my head. sata_fsl and sata_nv also make the
    > same assumption. And it's a reasonable assumption, IMO.

    Yeah, already updating all of them.

    > I think an unexpect_irq() call is more appropriate outside
    > ata_qc_complete().

    The choices we have here are....

    1. Update completion API so that libata core layer has enough
    information to decide expect/unexpect events.

    2. Add expect/unexpect calls to individual drivers.

    I think #1 is much better now and in the long run. The code actually
    looks better too.



     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-25 11:55    [W:0.021 / U:0.576 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site