Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:48:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:48:15 -0500 Received: from k2.llnl.gov ([134.9.1.1]:34982 "EHLO k2.llnl.gov") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:48:01 -0500 From: Reto Baettig Message-Id: <200012080017.QAA00379@k2.llnl.gov> Subject: io_request_lock question (2.2) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:17:30 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: Reto Baettig X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi I'm trying to write a block device driver which does some network stuff to satisfy the requests. The problem is, that the network stuff wants to grab the io_request_lock which does not work because this lock is already locked when I come into the request_fn of my device. I looked at the implementation of the nbd which just calls spin_unlock_irq(&io_request_lock); ... do network io ... spin_lock_irq(&io_request_lock); This seems to work but it looks very dangerous to me (and ugly, too). Isn't there a better way to do this? Thanks very much Reto - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/