On Tuesday 02 June 2009 15:08:27 Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
> <bzolnier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ..
>
> >> --- a/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/ide/ide-tape.c
> >> @@ -656,15 +656,24 @@ static ide_startstop_t idetape_do_request(ide_drive_t *drive,
> >>
> >> if ((drive->dev_flags & IDE_DFLAG_DSC_OVERLAP) == 0 &&
> >> (rq->cmd[13] & REQ_IDETAPE_PC2) == 0)
> >> - set_bit(IDE_AFLAG_IGNORE_DSC, &drive->atapi_flags);
> >> + drive->atapi_flags |= IDE_AFLAG_IGNORE_DSC;
> >>
> >> if (drive->dev_flags & IDE_DFLAG_POST_RESET) {
> >> - set_bit(IDE_AFLAG_IGNORE_DSC, &drive->atapi_flags);
> >> + drive->atapi_flags |= IDE_AFLAG_IGNORE_DSC;
> >> drive->dev_flags &= ~IDE_DFLAG_POST_RESET;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - if (!test_and_clear_bit(IDE_AFLAG_IGNORE_DSC, &drive->atapi_flags) &&
> >> - (stat & ATA_DSC) == 0) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * This is a precaution for IDE_AFLAG_IGNORE_DSC being conditionally set
> >> + * above. We don't need a stronger enforcement of ordering because the
> >> + * read below cannot precede the earlier write out-of-order since it is
> >> + * to the same location. Also, since we have the ide port locked during
> >> + * the ->do_request(), we only have to be aware of gcc reordering stuff.
> >> + */
> >> + barrier();
> >
> > Are you seeing a real problem with gcc here? No sane compiler should need
> > a barrier() here (we would probably need zillions of them in kernel if it
> > really does).
>
> No, this is just a precaution. The asm I checked looked fine but since
> the flag is set and right afterwards checked, it will be bad if this
> somehow got reordered. I actually haven't checked whether anything like
> that would be possible, at all.
Please remove it then.
--
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
