[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806240047.29118.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:47:28 +0200
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IDE: Fix HDIO_DRIVE_RESET handling
On Monday 23 June 2008, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de> wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -941,6 +949,7 @@ static ide_startstop_t atapi_reset_pollfunc (ide_drive_t *drive)
> > /* done polling */
> > hwgroup->polling = 0;
> > hwgroup->resetting = 0;
>
> Actually, ->resetting needs to be protected by the ide_lock here.
>
> [...]
> > @@ -1005,6 +1014,8 @@ static ide_startstop_t reset_pollfunc (ide_drive_t *drive)
> > }
> > hwgroup->polling = 0; /* done polling */
> > hwgroup->resetting = 0; /* done reset attempt */
>
> Same as above. Unless I have missed something, a simple
>
> spin_lock(&ide_lock)
>
> should suffice since there cannot possibly be another interrupt that
> changes ->resetting behind our back. I'll send an updated version of
> patches 1 and 4 once I have your opinion on the current series.
With patch #1 we may as well just remove ->resetting and allow the next
reset request to be added to the queue.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists