From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: command emulation fix Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:17:50 -0800 Message-ID: <20170118191750.GA9171@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <1484412602-11801-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170115230723.GB14446@mtj.duckdns.org> <20170116152120.GA16072@lst.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f65.google.com ([74.125.83.65]:34096 "EHLO mail-pg0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753012AbdART0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 14:26:46 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f65.google.com with SMTP id t6so2074780pgt.1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:26:46 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170116152120.GA16072@lst.de> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:21:20PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 06:07:23PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Ugh... I don't know. What we had previously is always guaranteed to > > work. I'm not really liking the fact that we're adding a possibility > > of failure here. Even if we do mempool, we would still have to > > protect it with a spinlock as mempool only guarantees one allocation > > at a time. Until we have a better solution, can we please revert back > > to where we were at least for the buffers needed from atomic context? > > In that case you'll need to drop all but the first patch from the series > as ->queuecommand can always be called from atomic context. I reverted just the last patch. The rest should be fine, right? Thanks. -- tejun