From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elias Oltmanns Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide: replace the global ide_lock spinlock by per-hwgroup spinlocks Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:01:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87ej2ld761.fsf@denkblock.local> References: <200810102126.14475.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from nebensachen.de ([195.34.83.29]:57164 "EHLO mail.nebensachen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754586AbYJLSCM (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:02:12 -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, "Vaibhav V. Nivargi" , "Alok N. Kataria" , Ravikiran Thirumalai , Shai Fultheim Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Subject: [PATCH] ide: replace the global ide_lock spinlock by per-hwgroup spinlocks > > Now that (almost) all host drivers have been fixed not to abuse ide_lock > and core code usage of ide_lock has been sanitized we may safely replace > ide_lock by per-hwgroup locks. > > This patch is partially based on earlier patch from Ravikiran G Thirumalai. > > While at it: > - don't use deprecated HWIF() and HWGROUP() macros > - update locking documentation in ide.h > > Cc: Vaibhav V. Nivargi > Cc: Alok N. Kataria > Cc: Ravikiran Thirumalai > Cc: Shai Fultheim > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > --- > this is against 2.6.27 + pata tree + pre-patchset posted on Wednesday > (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/10/8/221) I've only had a casual look at this patch, but there is one thing: [...] > Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-probe.c > =================================================================== > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-probe.c > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-probe.c [...] > @@ -1091,11 +1092,11 @@ static int init_irq (ide_hwif_t *hwif) > * linked list, the first entry is the hwif that owns > * hwgroup->handler - do not change that. > */ > - spin_lock_irq(&ide_lock); > + spin_lock_irq(&hwgroup->lock); > hwif->next = hwgroup->hwif->next; > hwgroup->hwif->next = hwif; > BUG_ON(hwif->next == hwif); > - spin_unlock_irq(&ide_lock); > + spin_unlock_irq(&hwgroup->lock); > } else { > hwgroup = kmalloc_node(sizeof(*hwgroup), GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO, > hwif_to_node(hwif)); Something like spin_lock_init(&hwgroup->lock); should go into this else clause too. Regards, Elias