[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C1F6E8E.6050301@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:52:14 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: jeff@...zik.org
CC: mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, bphilips@...e.de,
yinghai@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
gregkh@...e.de, khali@...ux-fr.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] libata: use IRQ expecting
On 06/13/2010 05:31 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Thanks to its age, ATA is very susceptible to IRQ delivery problems in
> both directions - lost and spurious interrupts. In traditional PATA,
> the IRQ line is ultimately out of the controller and driver's control.
> Even relatively new SATA isn't free from these issues. Many
> controllers still emulate the traditional IDE interface which doesn't
> have reliable way to indicate interrupt pending state and there also
> is an issue regarding the interpretation of nIEN on both sides of the
> cable.
>
> Most of these problems can be worked around by using the new IRQ
> expecting mechanism without adding noticeable overhead. In ATA,
> almost all operations are initiated by the host and the controller
> signals progress or completion using IRQ. IRQ expecting can easily be
> added in libata core and applied to all libata drivers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Jeff, can you please ack this change if this looks okay to you? Also,
would it okay to route this through irq tree?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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