From: Grant Grundler <iod00d@hp.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Hironobu Ishii <ishii.hironobu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH, 2/4] readX_check() performance evaluation
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:01:53 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040128170153.GA5494@cup.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040128085825.A3591@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 08:58:25AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Does anybody see any downsides to something like this?
>
> What if the failing PCI access happened in an interrupt routine?
> (I'm thinking of the situation where you may need to read the PCI
> status registers to find out whether an error occurred.)
The driver needs to be able to clean up in any context.
That's why I'm advocating what willy called an "exception framework".
While I like linus' suggestion is better than the original,
it spreads the driver error recovery code throughout the driver.
That upside is it can handle every situation.
The downside is numerous error paths makes the regular code alot
harder to read and maintain.
> Also, for that matter, what if a network device receives an abort
> while performing BM-DMA?
The next PIO read will see the error caused by BM-DMA.
> Do we even care about either of these two scenarios?
yes. IO Error recovery has to deal with every scenario.
grant
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-28 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-01-28 1:54 [RFC/PATCH, 2/4] readX_check() performance evaluation Hironobu Ishii
2004-01-28 2:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 4:44 ` Paul Mackerras
2004-01-28 8:58 ` Russell King
2004-01-28 16:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 17:01 ` Grant Grundler [this message]
2004-01-28 18:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2004-01-28 19:19 ` Andi Kleen
2004-01-28 19:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 19:40 ` Andi Kleen
2004-01-28 20:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 20:15 ` Andi Kleen
2004-01-28 20:19 ` [RFC/PATCH, 2/4] readX_check() performance evaluation II Andi Kleen
2004-01-28 20:28 ` [RFC/PATCH, 2/4] readX_check() performance evaluation Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 20:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 21:09 ` Andi Kleen
2004-01-28 21:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 21:52 ` Andi Kleen
2004-01-28 22:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-28 22:39 ` Andi Kleen
2004-01-28 22:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-01-29 12:24 ` Hironobu Ishii
2004-01-28 22:15 ` David S. Miller
2004-01-28 3:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040128170153.GA5494@cup.hp.com \
--to=iod00d@hp.com \
--cc=ishii.hironobu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox