Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:30:08 +0200 | From | Marcin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: IDE lockups with 2.5.28... |
| |
Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> Well, no. Both of these loop have completely different terminating conditions. > You exit when IDE hardware is busy, while SCSI exits if hardware is busy, > or when there is nothing to do. Fundamental difference.
Shit - you are right. We look until the next request sets IDE_BUSY as a side effect.... I just wanted to close the window between clear we clear IDE_BUSY in ata_irq_handler just before recalling do_request to set it immediately on again. Should be both of course.
>>Same allies to blk_stop_queue(). > > > So your request_fn is invoked for each of queues which had pending > requests. Upper layer cannot expect that you are using two queues, > but hardware really wants to use only one. Shared queue_lock is there > for hardware which can start one request at a time (one set of > registers...), but can have requests to the different devices > in progress.
Yes theoretically yes. The problem is only that queue_lock doesn't as advertized becouse the request_fn are *releasing* the spin lock at a point where the QUEUE_FLAG_STOP doesn't have any usefull value.
> P.S.: I did not saw IDE 105. Does it exist?
I think I did send it under a wrong topic. Please look for Re: Linux-2.5.28.
- 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/
| |