Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] IDE Power Management, try 2 | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | 05 Jun 2003 16:30:43 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2003-06-05 at 16:27, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > I had to add yet another rq->flags bit for that, and I think that sucks > > > > You don't have if you use additional, default pm_state (on == 0). > > This sucks too, but a bit less. > > Can you elaborate ? I'm not sure I understand what you meant
Forget it, my brain finally got a clue ;) Though I don't like the solution. Adding pm_step & pm_state to struct request or a ptr to rq_pm_struct seem the way to go to me, though I'm not sure which of these 2 solution is the best, struct request is already a can of worms imho... ;) If we ever need more PM fields in there, then the pointer may be the best solution, but right know, I can't think of any reason to add more stuffs
> > I think extending struct request is the way to go, > > pm_step & pm_state or even pointer to rq_pm_struct. > > Ok. I'll wait for Jens ack and go that way if he agrees. > > Ben. -- Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> - 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/
| |