[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1293139434.4649.122.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:23:54 -0800
From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To: Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Open iSCSI <open-iscsi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] libiscsi: Convert to host_lock less
w/ interrupts disabled internally
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 18:36 -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 12/20/2010 03:30 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > After a quick audit of iscsi_session->lock usage, and I see that
> > iscsi_complete_pdu(), iscsi_tmf_timedout(), iscsi_eh_cmd_timed_out(),
> > iscsi_check_transport_timeouts() are using spin_lock(), and
> > iscsi_session_failure() and iscsi_conn_failure() are using
> > spin_lock_irqsave().
> >
> > Mike and Hannes, would you guys mind commenting on this..? From what I
> > can determine these should all be converted to use spin_lock_bh(),
> > yes..?
> >
>
> Yeah, they can use _bh locking. I was going to use them for qla4xxx eh,
> which does iscsi processing in its irq, but we never did.
Thanks for the clarification. I would be happy to submit a patch next
week for this seperately from the host_lock-less conversion pieces, or
would you prefer handle this yourself..?
Best Regards,
--nab
--
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