On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:53:10PM +0800, Asias He wrote:
>> +static void virtblk_make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
>> +{
>> + struct virtio_blk *vblk = q->queuedata;
>> + unsigned int num, out = 0, in = 0;
>> + struct virtblk_req *vbr;
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(bio->bi_phys_segments + 2 > vblk->sg_elems);
>> + BUG_ON(bio->bi_rw & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA));
>> +
>> + vbr = virtblk_alloc_req(vblk, GFP_NOIO);
>> + if (!vbr) {
>> + bio_endio(bio, -ENOMEM);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + vbr->bio = bio;
>> + vbr->req = NULL;
>> + vbr->out_hdr.type = 0;
>> + vbr->out_hdr.sector = bio->bi_sector;
>> + vbr->out_hdr.ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
>> +
>> + sg_set_buf(&vbr->sg[out++], &vbr->out_hdr, sizeof(vbr->out_hdr));
>> +
>> + num = blk_bio_map_sg(q, bio, vbr->sg + out);
>> +
>> + sg_set_buf(&vbr->sg[num + out + in++], &vbr->status,
>> + sizeof(vbr->status));
>> +
>> + if (num) {
>> + if (bio->bi_rw & REQ_WRITE) {
>> + vbr->out_hdr.type |= VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT;
>> + out += num;
>> + } else {
>> + vbr->out_hdr.type |= VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN;
>> + in += num;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
>> + if (virtqueue_add_buf(vblk->vq, vbr->sg, out, in, vbr,
>> + GFP_ATOMIC) < 0) {
>> + spin_unlock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
>
> Any implications of dropping lock like that?
> E.g. for suspend. like we are still discussing with
> unlocked kick?
Since we aquired the lock in this function there should be no problem.
Whatever protects against vblk or vblk->disk disappearing upon
entering this function also protects after unlocking queue_lock.
Otherwise all .make_request_fn() functions would be broken.
I'd still like to understand the details though.
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
