From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: eata irq abuse (was: Re: Linux 2.5.60) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:51:21 +0000 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030212145121.A8963@infradead.org> References: <70652A801D9E0C469C28A0F8BCF49CF9012EBA97@itmi1mx2.corp.emc.com> <20030212142541.A8262@infradead.org> <1045060838.1823.7.camel@mulgrave> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1045060838.1823.7.camel@mulgrave>; from James.Bottomley@steeleye.com on Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 08:40:34AM -0600 List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Ballabio_Dario@emc.com, manfred@colorfullife.com, warp@mercury.d2dc.net, SCSI Mailing List On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 08:40:34AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > Ah, you don't need the lock but the disabled interrupts! > > In general, that's not correct: most HBA registers have to be accessed > in sequence, thus you need global protection from anyone else touching > them while you're at the registers. This is what host_lock was designed > for. Of course. but that's not how driver_lock in eata.c works. It's taken when we enter eata2x_detect(), dropped before scsi_register(), reacquired afterwards and released when we leave eata2x_detect(). I don't really see what it is supposed to protect.