[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:34:28 +0200
From: Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ide: ide_hwgroup_t.rq doesn't need an ide_lock held
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.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@...il.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
--
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