Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:51:50 +0200 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/12] libata: use IRQ expecting |
| |
Hello,
On 06/25/2010 11:48 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > My basic point is that you are implicitly changing the entire > ata_qc_complete() API, and associated underlying assumptions. > > The existing assumption, since libata day #0, is that ata_qc_complete() > works entirely within the scope of a single qc -- thus enabling multiple > calls for a single controller interrupt. Your change greatly widens the > scope to an entire port.
Yeah, I'm changing that and it actually reduces code.
> This isn't just an issue with sata_mv, that was just the easy example I > remember off the top of my head. sata_fsl and sata_nv also make the > same assumption. And it's a reasonable assumption, IMO.
Yeah, already updating all of them.
> I think an unexpect_irq() call is more appropriate outside > ata_qc_complete().
The choices we have here are....
1. Update completion API so that libata core layer has enough information to decide expect/unexpect events.
2. Add expect/unexpect calls to individual drivers.
I think #1 is much better now and in the long run. The code actually looks better too.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |