From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] libata: prevent HSM state change race between ISR and PIO Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:57:26 -0500 Message-ID: <20150119195726.GA4556@htj.dyndns.org> References: <1421694205-14944-1-git-send-email-dmilburn@redhat.com> <20150119191524.GC10570@htj.dyndns.org> <54BD5CEF.2050808@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-qg0-f54.google.com ([209.85.192.54]:61037 "EHLO mail-qg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751473AbbASUDZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:03:25 -0500 Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id z60so18236582qgd.13 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:03:25 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54BD5CEF.2050808@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: David Milburn Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 01:37:19PM -0600, David Milburn wrote: > Wouldn't we still have to use host lock instead of port lock to sync > with ISR? They're the same lock for SFF controllers. If I'm not mistaken, ahci is currently the only one which splits the host lock when MMSI is enabled. Thanks. -- tejun