On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:05:57 +0200 Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/26/2009 09:42 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > A few issues. > > > > Tejun Heo wrote: > >>> Perhaps you could reorder the code below a bit? > >>> > >>> My proposal is: > >>> * blk_rq_map_kern_prealloc => is simplified to be > >>> int blk_rq_map_bio(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, > >>> struct bio *bio); > > > > The thing is that the prealloc variant should be allowed to be called > > from IRQ context and blk_queue_bounce() shouldn't be called. > > Hmmm... well, the caller is supposed to know what it's doing and maybe > > we can just add a comment that it shouldn't be called with buffers > > which might get bounced from IRQ context. > > > > Hmm that is a problem. I would suggest a flag or a check. My bios come > from VFS they need bouncing. > > Can you think of a solution? > > We could just call blk_queue_bounce(). IRQ callers need to make sure their > buffers don't need bouncing anyway, so there is no such bug right? If a programmer > gets it wrong he will get a BUG check that tells him that. If I understand the old IDE code, it's broken about the kernel buffer bouncing. Fixing this in the old ide needs a big surgery, I think. When I converted the old ide code to use the block layer API to allocate a request, I gave up the requests on the stack (used in IRQ). -- 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
