Re: [PATCH] IDE TCQ #4

[Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>]

On Tue, Apr 16 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> 
> >yes this looks like a silly problem. the fix should be to have
> >ata_ar_get() set ATA_AR_RETURN in ar_flags:
> >
> >        if (!list_empty(&drive->free_req)) {
> >                ar = list_ata_entry(drive->free_req.next);
> >                list_del(&ar->ar_queue);
> >                ata_ar_init(drive, ar);
> >                ar->ar_flags |= ATA_AR_RETURN;
> >        }
> >
> >and then only have ata_ar_put() readd it to the list when it is set:
> >
> >static inline void ata_ar_put(ide_drive_t *drive, struct ata_request
> >*ar)
> >{
> >        if (ar->ar_flags & ATA_AR_RETURN)
> >                list_add(&ar->ar_queue, &drive->free_req);
> >	...
> >
> >Then you can also remove the ata_ar_put() conditional in
> >ide_end_drive_cmd(), just call ata_ar_put() unconditionally.
> 
> Well something similar is already in IDE 37... I have just
> invented a flag ATA_AR_STATIC which get's set in ide_raw_taskfile
> ata_ar_put ich then checking for if (!(ar->ar_flags & ATA_AR_STATIC))...
> 
> It has the desired effect in practice.

sure, just used ATA_AR_RETURN since it was there already. I'm not
particularly fond of that name though, and ATA_AR_STATIC isn't too good
either imo. how about ATA_AR_POOL? with the same semantics as
ATA_AR_RETURN, ie return to pool if flag is set.

-- 
Jens Axboe