>> That said, I think all the "lock group" logic in drivers/ide
>> may be useless, and it would be pretty straightforward to delete all
>> that code, have ata_channel->lock be a lock rather than a pointer to one,
>> and have it be initialized before that first call to ch->tuneproc, in
>> which case we could just have interrupts off and ch->lock held in all
>> cases when ch->tuneproc is called. I did not want to do this in my patch,
>> because I wanted to keep my patch as small as possible, but perhaps it
>> would be worth doing now just to simplify the rules for calling ch->tuneproc.
>Not quite. It's not that easy becouse the same lock is used by the BIO
>layer to synchronize between for example master and slave devices.
Master and slave devices share the same channel, so
master->channel == slave->channel
&master->channel->lock == &slave->channel->lock
So their queue->lock pointer would continue to point to
the same lock: &channel->lock.
>There are other problems with this but right now you can hardly do
>something about it.
I'd be intersted in knowing what one of those other problems
is. Otherwise, I don't understand why I can't eliminate the "lock
group" stuff.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
adam@yggdrasil.com \ / Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America
"Free Software For The Rest Of Us."
-
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/