From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263205AbTDYLh2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:37:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263505AbTDYLh1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:37:27 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:10684 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263205AbTDYLh0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 07:37:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:49:32 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Alexander Atanasov , linux-kernel mailing list Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] IDE Power Management try 1 Message-ID: <20030425114932.GL1012@suse.de> References: <1051189194.13267.23.camel@gaston> <3EA90176.2080304@ssi.bg> <1051270378.15078.22.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1051270378.15078.22.camel@gaston> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 25 2003, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > What about this - add __REQ_DRIVE_INTERNAL, and carry args in > > rq->cmd[16] [0] = PM, [1] = SUSPEND/RESUME, [2]= STATE ? IDE can use it > > for power managment, error handling (do not do it from interrupt > > context, but queue it), may be more. This way it would really makes > > things a bit better with the complicated IDE locking. SCSI and probably > > other block devices can benefit from this internal requests too, so the > > bit is not wasted. > > I agree. IDE locking isn't _that_ complicated ;) Though currently, we do >>From the request side of things, IDE is very simple. > handle requests right on interrupt completion so error handling wouldn't > be deferred by this trick. > > Jens, what do you think ? You are the blkdev.h guy :) If you add REQ_DRIVE_INTERNAL, and kill the other ones I mentioned, fine with me then. rq->flags & REQ_DRIVE_INTERNAL rq->cmd[0] == PM pm stuf rq->cmd[0] = taskfile taskfile etc. Make sense? -- Jens Axboe