lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: io_request_lock question (2.2)

> >
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
> > > > io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
> > >
> > > You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no
> > > problems in the I2O scsi driver for example
> >
> > I am (like, I think I *finally* got locking sorta right in my QLogic driver),
> > but doesn't this still leave ints blocked for this CPU at least?
>
> spin_unlock_irq() does a __sti()
> spin_unlock() doesn't.

Umm. Okay, but you haven't changed your processor priority though, right?
(I just don't *get* i386 stuff... I'll go off and ponder SParc code - &that& I
understand).

-matt


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:51    [W:0.070 / U:22.680 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site