From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Elias Oltmanns Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] ide: use queue lock instead of ide_lock when possible Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:43:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87zllcet7k.fsf@denkblock.local> References: <20081008202930.19112.90371.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20081008203027.19112.20883.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from nebensachen.de ([195.34.83.29]:39832 "EHLO mail.nebensachen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751694AbYJJIrR (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:47:17 -0400 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Jens Axboe Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > Subject: [PATCH] ide: use queue lock instead of ide_lock when possible > > This is just a preparation for future changes and there should be no > functional changes caused by this patch since ide_lock is currently > also used as queue lock. > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > --- [...] > Index: b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c > =================================================================== > --- a/drivers/ide/ide-io.c > +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-io.c [...] > @@ -1469,16 +1470,16 @@ out: > void ide_do_drive_cmd(ide_drive_t *drive, struct request *rq) > { > ide_hwgroup_t *hwgroup = drive->hwif->hwgroup; > + struct request_queue *q = drive->queue; > unsigned long flags; > > hwgroup->rq = NULL; > > - spin_lock_irqsave(&ide_lock, flags); > - __elv_add_request(drive->queue, rq, ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT, 1); > - __generic_unplug_device(drive->queue); > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags); > + spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags); > + __elv_add_request(q, rq, ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT, 1); > + __generic_unplug_device(q); By the way, wouldn't blk_run_queue() be more appropriate here? It looks to me as if blk_run_queue() was the thing intended for general usage by low level drivers who don't know and care about schedulers, whereas the usage of __generic_unplug_device() should mostly be restricted to the block layer. On the other hand, there are other drivers in drivers/block/ that use __generic_unplug_device(), so I may well be wrong. Jens? Regards, Elias