Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:19:45 -0800 (PST) | From | Matthew Jacob <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |