lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/7] ide: ide_hwgroup_t.rq doesn't need an ide_lock held
Date
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] ide: ide_hwgroup_t.rq doesn't need an ide_lock held
>
> While at it:
> - no need to check for hwgroup presence in ide_dump_opcode()
>
> Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
> ---
[...]
> Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
> +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c
[...]
> @@ -274,7 +269,11 @@ static void ide_complete_pm_request (ide
> drive->dev_flags &= ~IDE_DFLAG_BLOCKED;
> blk_start_queue(drive->queue);
> }
> - HWGROUP(drive)->rq = NULL;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags);
> +
> + drive->hwif->hwgroup->rq = NULL;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ide_lock, flags);
> if (__blk_end_request(rq, 0, 0))
> BUG();
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags);

Is it really an improvement to release the lock here?

Regards,

Elias


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-10 10:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans