[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1284745799.7280.155.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:49:59 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
James Smart <james.smart@...lex.com>,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@...co.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around
SHT->queuecommand()
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 09:41 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > >
> > > What I was actually thinking of for the atomic is that we'd let it range
> > > [1..INT_MAX] so a zero was an indicator of no use of this. Then the
> > > actual code could become
> > >
> > > if (atomic_read(x)) {
> > > do {
> > > y = atomic_add_return(1, x);
> > > } while (y == 0);
> > > }
> >
> > The conversion of struct scsi_cmnd->serial_number to atomic_t and the
> > above code for scsi_cmd_get_serial() sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
> >
>
> Actually, that should be the conversion of struct
> Scsi_Host->cmd_serial_number to an atomic_t. AFAICT there is no reason
> for struct scsi_cmnd->serial_number needing to be an atomic_t.
Just want to verify the hidden assumption we have here when the atomic
int Scsi_Host->cmd_serial_number counter overflow after increment. The
counter itself then becomes negative. We are assuming that when we do
type conversion back to unsigned long scsi_cmnd->serial_number, we will
get the right thing.
So for 32-bit int, we expect if we start with 0x7fffffff in hex and the
expected sequence will be
2147483647 (int) -> 2147483647 (unsigned long) [0x7fffffff]
+1
-2147483648 (int) -> 2147483648 (unsigned long) [0x80000000]
+1
-2147483647 (int) -> 2147483649 (unsigned long) [0x80000001]
If there is architecture where the above assumption is not true (which
I'm not aware of but just checking), then we should manually wrap the
atomic counter to 1 when counter overflow.
Tim
--
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