Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757005AbYJWNmn (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:42:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756711AbYJWNlT (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:41:19 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:54358 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756816AbYJWNlR (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:41:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:40:18 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libata: get rid of ATA_MAX_QUEUE loop in ata_qc_complete_multiple() Message-ID: <20081023134017.GA22217@kernel.dk> References: <1224661243-7929-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <1224661243-7929-2-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <48FFFA15.8060603@kernel.org> <20081023064357.GT22217@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081023064357.GT22217@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1545 Lines: 50 On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23 2008, Tejun Heo wrote: > > while (done_mask) { > > struct ata_queued_cmd *qc; > > unsigned int next = __ffs(done_mask); > > > > tag += next; > > if ((qc = ata_qc_from_tag(ap, tag))) { > > ata_qc_complete(qc); > > nr_done++; > > } > > next++; > > tag += next; > > done_mask >>= next; > > } > > That doesn't work (you're adding next to tag twice), it needs a little > tweak: > > while (done_mask) { > struct ata_queued_cmd *qc; > unsigned int next = __ffs(done_mask); > > if ((qc = ata_qc_from_tag(ap, tag + next))) { > ata_qc_complete(qc); > nr_done++; > } > next++; > tag += next; > done_mask >>= next; > } > > and I think it should work. Not tested yet :-) Pondered some more, and it can't work. The problem is that if we complete tag 31, we attempt to shift done_mask down by 32 bits. On a 32-bit arch, that's not defined. So we DO need a check like the existing one, or something similar. So I don't think we need to make changes to this patch either, at least unless one of you can come up with a better check that avoids a branch. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/