[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:0.154 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site