[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081210004810.GA5073@infernal.debian.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:48:10 +0100
From: Andreas Bombe <aeb@...ian.org>
To: Joerg Dorchain <joerg@...chain.net>
Cc: linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] amiflop: get rid of sleep_on calls
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 09:26:08AM +0100, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 04:59:38PM +0000, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> > The replacement for the unconditional sleep_on() in fd_motor_on() is a
> > complete_all() together with a INIT_COMPLETION() before the mod_timer()
> > call. It appears to me that fd_motor_on() might be called concurrently
> > and fd_select() does not guarantee mutual exclusivity in the case the
> > same drive gets selected again.
>
> Selecting the same drive repeatly does not matter. The selected
> drive is the one the next command or transfer applies to.
I think we're not talking about the same problem. If I were to use
complete() together with wait_for_completion() there would be a problem
if fd_motor_on() can get as far as wait_for_completion() while a
previous completion is yet uncompleted. This can not happen for
different drives, as the fd_select() would block. If it could happen
for the same drive, the complete() would allow only one task to
continue. The complete_all() takes care of that.
If requests are serialized for a drive so that there won't ever be two
running at the same time for certain (thinking about it, it's probable),
I could make it a simple complete(). It's hardly worth the risk,
however.
--
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