Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 9 Dec 2000 02:06:27 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: io_request_lock question (2.2) |
| |
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 04:19:45PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > 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?
There is no concept of spl levels in Linux ;) It only knows about interrupts on or off.
> (I just don't *get* i386 stuff... I'll go off and ponder SParc code - &that& I > understand).
It is very simple[1] : interrupts can be on or off. __cli() disables them, __sti() enables them again.
When you want nesting use the _flags versions.
-Andi [1] in linux, there are some architecture extensions for interrupt priorities, but linux doesn't use them.
- 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/
|  |