lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.15 IDE 62
Date
>> So I think we should have per channel locks on this level
>> right? This is anyway our unit for serialization.
>> (I'm just surprised that blk_init_queue() doesn't
>> provide queue specific locking and relies on exported
>> locks from the drivers...)
>
>Sure go ahead and fine grain it, I had no time to go that much into
>detail when ripping out io_request_lock. A drive->lock passed to
>blk_init_queue would do nicely.
>
>But beware that ide locking is a lot nastier than you think. I saw other
>irq changes earlier, I just want to make sure that you are _absolutely_
>certain that these changes are safe??

You'll probably need a per-host lock (but that one can be safely
hidden in the host controller driver I beleive) since some hosts
share some registers for their 2 channels (timings can be bitfields
in a single register controlling 2 channels, I'm not too sure about
legacy DMA).

Ben.



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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans