[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C245E50.7090701@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:44:16 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jeff Garzik <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
Hello, Jeff.
On 06/25/2010 02:22 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> @@ -4972,6 +4972,8 @@ void ata_qc_complete(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
>> {
>> struct ata_port *ap = qc->ap;
>>
>> + unexpect_irq(ap->irq_expect, false);
>> +
>> /* XXX: New EH and old EH use different mechanisms to
>> * synchronize EH with regular execution path.
>> *
>
> Unconditional use of unexpect_irq() here seems incorrect for some cases,
> such as sata_mv's use, where ata_qc_complete() is called multiple times
> rather than a singleton ata_qc_complete_multiple() call.
Indeed, sata_mv is calling ata_qc_complete() directly multiple times.
I still think calling unexpect_irq() from ata_qc_complete() is correct
as ata_qc_complete() is always a good indicator of completion events.
What's missing is a way for sata_mv to indicate that it has more
events to expect for, which under the current implementation only
sata_mv interrupt handler can determine. I'll see if I can convert it
to use ata_qc_complete_multiple() instead.
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