From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] libata: use IRQ expecting Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:51:50 +0200 Message-ID: <4C247C36.6040007@kernel.org> References: <1276443098-20653-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1276443098-20653-12-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <4C23F6C1.7070603@garzik.org> <4C245E50.7090701@kernel.org> <4C247B54.2050900@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:43763 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751896Ab0FYJwf (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:52:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C247B54.2050900@garzik.org> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff Garzik Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, bphilips@suse.de, yinghai@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, stern@rowland.harvard.edu, gregkh@suse.de, khali@linux-fr.org Hello, On 06/25/2010 11:48 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > 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. Yeah, I'm changing that and it actually reduces code. > 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. Yeah, already updating all of them. > I think an unexpect_irq() call is more appropriate outside > ata_qc_complete(). The choices we have here are.... 1. Update completion API so that libata core layer has enough information to decide expect/unexpect events. 2. Add expect/unexpect calls to individual drivers. I think #1 is much better now and in the long run. The code actually looks better too. Thanks. -- tejun