Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:17:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:17:16 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:4753 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:17:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:17:03 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Martin Dalecki Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.21 IDE 91 Message-ID: <20020614151703.GB1120@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <3D09F769.8090704@evision-ventures.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 14 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote: > Thu Jun 13 22:59:54 CEST 2002 ide-clean-91 > > - Realize that the only place where ata_do_taskfile gets used is ide-disk.c > move it and its "friends' over there. Ehm, isn't that a bit odd? The typical "I'm not looking at the interface, if only one person is currently using it then heck lets move it" Martin approach (refer to prep_rq_fn cdb builder as well) The above is just a minor thing, the reason I'm mailing is really: - current 2.5 bk deadlocks reading partition info off disk. Again a locking problem I suppose, to be honest I just got very tired when seeing it happen and didn't want to spend tim looking into it. I thought IDE locking couldn't get worse than 2.4, but I think you are well into doing just that. What exactly are you plans with the channel locks? Right now, to me, it seems you are extending the use of them to the point where they would be used to serialize the entire request operation start? Heck, ide-cd is even holding the channel lock when outputting the cdb now. - ata_end_request(). why didn't you just remove the last argument to __ata_end_request() instead just changing the comment saying why we pass nr_secs == 0 in from some sites? - what's the reasoning behind moving the active request into the ata_device?! we are serializing requests for ata_device's on the ata_channel anyways, which is why it made sense to have the active request there. And finally a small plea for more testing. Do you even test before blindly sending patches off to Linus?! Sometimes just watching how quickly these big patches appears makes it impossible that they have gotten any kind of testing other than the 'hey it compiles', which I think it just way too little for something that could possible screw peoples data up very badly. Frankly, _I'm_ too scared to run 2.5 IDE currently. The success ratio of posted over working patches is too big. -- 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/