Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:17:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:17:29 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:60170 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:17:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:16:32 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: hiren_mehta@agilent.com Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Matt_Domsch@Dell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: vmalloc on 2.4.x on ia64 Message-ID: <20010405021632.A9377@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from hiren_mehta@agilent.com on Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:11:32PM -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 06:11:32PM -0600, hiren_mehta@agilent.com wrote: > I am calling during initialization only from detect() entry point. > But I guess, before the detect() is called, scsi layer acquires > the io_request_lock. So, you mean to say that I need to release it > before calling vmalloc() ? I was doing the same thing on 2.2.x > and even on 2.4.0 and it was working fine and now suddenly > it stopped working on 2.4.2. So what are the guidelines for using > vmalloc() if we want to use it in scsi low-level (HBA) driver ? > I am currently using the new error handling code. (use_new_eh_code = TRUE). It probably never worked correctly in all cases. If you don't rely on the synchronization given by the io_request_lock you can drop it around the vmalloc() call. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/