Alan Cox wrote:
>> That would be the cleanest way to do it but I'm not sure whether all
>> controllers can live with that. If I understand correctly, Some
>> controllers just have to have the whole transfer done atomically. I
>> think Alan knows much better about this. Alan?
>
> Those controllers already do a local IRQ disable in their private
> ->data_xfer method so ought to be ok.
I think what Albert is suggesting is...
if (last_sector) {
for (i = 0; i < WORDS_IN_SECTORS - 1; i++)
ops->data_xfer(word);
/* HERE */
spin_lock_irq(ap->lock);
ops->data_xfer(last word);
ap->pflags &= ~WQ_IN_PROGRESS_STAY_AWAY_IRQHNDL;
spin_unlock_irq(ap->lock);
}
So, it basically splits the last sector into two transfers and nothing
prevents the machine from taking an interrupt at HERE.
Am I understanding it correctly Albert?
--
tejun
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
