Yes it looks fine, unfortunately the mid layer locking design is crappy
like that. Imposing locking downwards is just not good style :/
I've actually had quite good luck changing this for future kernels -- it
was required to remove io_request_lock anyways.
> The games which scsi_old_done() plays with spinlocks and interrupt
> enabling are really foul. If someone calls it with interrupts disabled
> (sbp2 does this) then scsi_old_done() will enable interrupts for you.
> If, for example, you call scsi_old_done() under spin_lock_irqsave(),
> the reenabling of interrupts will expose you to deadlocks. Perhaps
> scsi_old_done() should just use spin_unlock()/spin_lock()?
Yep it's not nice either. I wouldn't change that without further
auditing though.
-- Jens Axboe- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/