[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.15 IDE 62
    >> 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).


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.023 / U:32.588 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site