[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100917032021.GB25217@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 05:20:21 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...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 Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:46:11PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> So at least from where I stand, my object is to reduce the number of
> times we take and release the lock, which this doesn't do. As I said
> before: we need to figure out the rest, which likely includes an atomic
> for the serial number (which is almost unused). I think the check
> against SHOST_DEL is fine unlocked.
The check by itself for sure is. But I wonder whether we make any
assumptions about it not changing while we are in ->queuecommand, which
isn't nessecarily the case after this patch.
--
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