Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:31:12 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.1-rc2 ide barrier support |
| |
On Wed, Jan 07 2004, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Wednesday 07 of January 2004 14:43, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Bart, would you care to review the ide bits for sanity? > > Yep, here is just a first sight... > > > + struct request *flush_rq = &HWGROUP(drive)->wrq; > > I want to remove drive->wrq in the future.
Yes I've wanted that, too, but only because of the ugly (and often racy) multimode crap. I'm just considering wrq a 'reserve rq' to be used where you cannot reliably get a new request atomically.
I'm open to any better ideas you have for this...
> > + memset(drive->special_buf, 0, sizeof(drive->special_buf)); > > + > > + ide_init_drive_cmd(flush_rq); > > + > > + flush_rq->flags = REQ_DRIVE_TASK; > > + flush_rq->buffer = drive->special_buf; > > + flush_rq->special = rq; > > + flush_rq->buffer[0] = WIN_FLUSH_CACHE; > > + flush_rq->nr_sectors = rq->nr_sectors; > > I think you should try use REQ_DRIVE_TASKFILE, > instead of adding drive->special_buf.
How does that change anything? I still need a command buffer, if I use REQ_DRIVE_TASKFILE I need an even bigger one.
> > +/* > > + * FIXME: probably move this somewhere else, name is bad too :) > > + */ > > +static sector_t ide_get_error_location(ide_drive_t *drive, char *args) > > This is probably useful in few other places.
Yeah, as the comment states I know it's not really in the right place. Where do you want it? And any suggestions for a better name? :)
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |