From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elias Oltmanns Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ide: ide_hwgroup_t.rq doesn't need an ide_lock held Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:34:28 +0200 Message-ID: <87abdcg86j.fsf@denkblock.local> References: <20081008202930.19112.90371.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20081008203002.19112.519.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from nebensachen.de ([195.34.83.29]:39817 "EHLO mail.nebensachen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbYJJIrP (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:47:15 -0400 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Subject: [PATCH] ide: ide_hwgroup_t.rq doesn't need an ide_lock held > > While at it: > - no need to check for hwgroup presence in ide_dump_opcode() > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > --- [...] > Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c > =================================================================== > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-io.c > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c [...] > @@ -274,7 +269,11 @@ static void ide_complete_pm_request (ide > drive->dev_flags &= ~IDE_DFLAG_BLOCKED; > blk_start_queue(drive->queue); > } > - HWGROUP(drive)->rq = NULL; > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags); > + > + drive->hwif->hwgroup->rq = NULL; > + > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ide_lock, flags); > if (__blk_end_request(rq, 0, 0)) > BUG(); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags); Is it really an improvement to release the lock here? Regards, Elias