On Wed, Apr 23 2008, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:14:28AM +0200, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > [..] > > > Looks promising but probably I'll not be able to review it properly > > this week (I'm busy with my real job) and the next week (I'll be busy > > with pushing overdue IDE updates). OTOH I'm hoping that Borislav > > would be able to take a look in the meantime. > > Yep, they're quite straight-forward and look fine except some > nitpicking i sent in separate mails. FWIW, this is what we wanted to > do initially but Jens didn't agree to that at the time. I guess, it's > because i probably didn't express myself clearly enough then. See > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/3/1/1037974 for > the whole discussion. The cases that do ide_wait can clearly use __GFP_WAIT, and then there are no issues. My worry was with current paths that allocate the request on stack from interrupt context, where you cannot block for mempool allocation. Perhaps such paths don't exist in ide (anymore?), if not then there are no objections from me. -- Jens Axboe -- 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
