From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13tpyu-000731-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:35:00 +0000 Received: from cerebus-ext.cygnus.co.uk ([194.130.39.252] helo=passion.cygnus) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13tpys-00072v-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:34:59 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: Cc: Nicolas Pitre , mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: corruption with mtdblock Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:34:54 +0000 Message-ID: <28227.973769694@redhat.com> Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: dwmw2@infradead.org said: > Upon further consideration, it may be cleaner (at the cost of > _slightly_ higher io_request_lock contention) just to _not_ drop the > spinlock between finishing one request and checking to see if the > queue is empty. 'further consideration' is all well and good - but upon consumption of generous quantities of coffee, it occurs to me that this doesn't protect us from eating the first request on the queue if one arrives while the kernel thread is still initialising itself. Defining a QUEUE_PLUGGED macro isn't that ugly, is it? -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org