From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Luben Tuikov Subject: Re: [PATCH / RFC] scsi_error handler update. (1/4) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:22:21 -0500 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3E49698D.3030402@splentec.com> References: <20030211081351.GA1368@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E492992.90502@splentec.com> <20030211172256.GC3164@beaverton.ibm.com> <3E494977.1070706@splentec.com> <3E495862.3050709@splentec.com> <20030211212048.GC1114@beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Anderson Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Mike Anderson wrote: > Luben Tuikov [luben@splentec.com] wrote: > >>Yeah, the host_lock... >> >>I'm not very fond of grabbing a spin lock calling a fn which may sleep >>and then releasing the lock... > > > We grab this lock today before calling eh handlers, but I believe some > LLDDs drop the lock if they are going to sleep. :-) yes, I know -- I was just saying that I don't like this policy that much. It's an oxymoronic to grab a spin lock and say to someone, ok you can sleep, and then release the spin lock... -- Luben