lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/3] ps3: Disk Storage Driver
    On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:57:53 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com> wrote:

    > Hi Andrew,
    >
    > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:15:40 +0200
    > > Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@sonycom.com>
    > > >
    > > > Add a Disk Storage Driver for the PS3:
    > >
    > > Your patchset significantly hits powerpc, scsi and block. So who gets to
    > > merge this? Jens? James? Paul?
    > >
    > > Me, I guess ;)
    >
    > As Paul is on holidays, please take it.

    OK.

    > The PS3 storage driver core support is
    > already in mainline, but the actual drivers aren't, as Paul was waiting for
    > acks from the maintainers.
    >
    > BTW, do you prefer incremental patches for the comments below, or an update of
    > the full patchset?

    Incremental is preferred, but I convert replacement patches into
    incremental patches at about 10Hz nowadays. Whatever's easier.

    (Actually, if it's a replacement patch then only I get to see the
    incremental patch, and the incremental patch is more reviewer-friendly).

    > I didn't have much choice, as most of it was static and I don't need the full
    > libata core anyway.
    >
    > If I would factor it out, any good suggestion where to put the factored out
    > code?

    Take it up with Jeff, please. If you're keen. It isn't a lot of code.

    >
    > > > +static int ps3disk_remove(struct ps3_system_bus_device *_dev)
    > > > +{
    > > > + struct ps3_storage_device *dev = to_ps3_storage_device(&_dev->core);
    > > > + struct ps3disk_private *priv = ps3disk_priv(dev);
    > > > +
    > > > + __clear_bit(priv->gendisk->first_minor / PS3DISK_MINORS,
    > > > + &ps3disk_mask);
    > >
    > > I see no locking here which makes this __clear_bit and the above __set_bit
    > > non-racy?
    >
    > Were .probe()/.remove() made concurrent again? I thought that idea was dropped
    > because it caused too many problems?

    I don't _think_ there's any global exclusion on ->probe calls. For a
    particular driver instance it's hard to see how these thigns can run
    concurrently, dunno. I guess two hotunplugs coud happen concurrently.


    -
    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: 2007-07-19 11:15    [W:2.382 / U:0.164 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site