> . . . On the other hand I've been thinking that I might be able to
> take advantage of the irq locked condition imposed by the
> q->queue_lock and just use nbd_lock to replace q->queue_lock then. Al
> and Andrew seem to have a much deeper understanding though for
> spinlocking though so I'll defer to there comments on this idea (of
> replacing lo->queue_lock by use of nbd_lock). This has the added
> attraction of already having nbd_lock locked when in do_nbd_request.. . .
Typo! Above should have read "just use nbd_lock to replace
lo->queue_lock" (another spinlock_t per nbd_device). Anyways... would
using the one nbd_lock to also protect the lo->queue_list work better
than using the queue_lock per nbd_device I'm wondering. According to the
prior discusions about spinlocks this should be better. I don't have a
picture right now of wether that even works or not. Gotta run though,
thanks!
-
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/