lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/12] libata: use IRQ expecting
On 06/25/2010 03:44 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jeff.
>
> On 06/25/2010 02:22 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> @@ -4972,6 +4972,8 @@ void ata_qc_complete(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
>>> {
>>> struct ata_port *ap = qc->ap;
>>>
>>> + unexpect_irq(ap->irq_expect, false);
>>> +
>>> /* XXX: New EH and old EH use different mechanisms to
>>> * synchronize EH with regular execution path.
>>> *
>>
>> Unconditional use of unexpect_irq() here seems incorrect for some cases,
>> such as sata_mv's use, where ata_qc_complete() is called multiple times
>> rather than a singleton ata_qc_complete_multiple() call.
>
> Indeed, sata_mv is calling ata_qc_complete() directly multiple times.
> I still think calling unexpect_irq() from ata_qc_complete() is correct
> as ata_qc_complete() is always a good indicator of completion events.

My basic point is that you are implicitly changing the entire
ata_qc_complete() API, and associated underlying assumptions.

The existing assumption, since libata day #0, is that ata_qc_complete()
works entirely within the scope of a single qc -- thus enabling multiple
calls for a single controller interrupt. Your change greatly widens the
scope to an entire port.

This isn't just an issue with sata_mv, that was just the easy example I
remember off the top of my head. sata_fsl and sata_nv also make the
same assumption. And it's a reasonable assumption, IMO.

I think an unexpect_irq() call is more appropriate outside
ata_qc_complete().

Jeff





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-25 11:51    [W:0.309 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site