From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]: PCI Error Recovery: Symbios SCSI First Failure
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:41:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071001224132.GH4338@austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071001201247.GN12049@parisc-linux.org>
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 02:12:47PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I think the fundamental problem is that completions aren't really
> supposed to be used like this. Here's one attempt at using completions
> perhaps a little more the way they're supposed to be used,
Yes, that looks very good to me. I see it solves a bug that
I hadn't been quite aware of. I don't understand why
struct host_data is preferable to struct sym_shcb (is it because
this is the structure that is "naturally protectected" by the
spinlock?)
My gut instinct is to say "ack", although prudence dictates that
I should test first. Which might take a few days...
> although now
> I've written it, I wonder if we shouldn't just use a waitqueue instead.
I thought that earlier versions of the driver used waitqueues (I vaguely
remember "eh_wait" in the code), which were later converted to
completions (I also vaguely recall thinking that the new code was
more elegant/simpler). I converted my patch to use the completions
likewise, and, as you've clearly shown, did a rather sloppy job in
the conversion.
I'm tempted to go with this patch; but if you prod, I could attempt
a wait-queue based patch.
--linas
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2]: PCI Error Recovery: Symbios SCSI First Failure
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:41:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071001224132.GH4338@austin.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071001201247.GN12049@parisc-linux.org>
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 02:12:47PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I think the fundamental problem is that completions aren't really
> supposed to be used like this. Here's one attempt at using completions
> perhaps a little more the way they're supposed to be used,
Yes, that looks very good to me. I see it solves a bug that
I hadn't been quite aware of. I don't understand why
struct host_data is preferable to struct sym_shcb (is it because
this is the structure that is "naturally protectected" by the
spinlock?)
My gut instinct is to say "ack", although prudence dictates that
I should test first. Which might take a few days...
> although now
> I've written it, I wonder if we shouldn't just use a waitqueue instead.
I thought that earlier versions of the driver used waitqueues (I vaguely
remember "eh_wait" in the code), which were later converted to
completions (I also vaguely recall thinking that the new code was
more elegant/simpler). I converted my patch to use the completions
likewise, and, as you've clearly shown, did a rather sloppy job in
the conversion.
I'm tempted to go with this patch; but if you prod, I could attempt
a wait-queue based patch.
--linas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-01 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-20 20:41 [PATCH 1/2]: PCI Error Recovery: Symbios SCSI base support Linas Vepstas
2007-04-20 20:41 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-04-20 20:47 ` [PATCH 2/2]: PCI Error Recovery: Symbios SCSI First Failure Linas Vepstas
2007-04-20 20:47 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-05-09 20:26 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-05-17 19:53 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-09-26 15:02 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-09-26 15:02 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-09-27 22:00 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-09-27 22:00 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-09-27 22:10 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-09-27 22:10 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-09-27 23:34 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-09-27 23:34 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-10-01 20:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-10-01 20:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-10-01 22:41 ` Linas Vepstas [this message]
2007-10-01 22:41 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-10-02 1:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-10-02 1:27 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-10-02 21:59 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-10-02 21:59 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-10-04 18:36 ` Linas Vepstas
2007-10-04 18:36 ` Linas Vepstas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071001224132.GH4338@austin.ibm.com \
--to=linas@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.