Hello, Jeff.
On 06/25/2010 02:22 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> @@ -4972,6 +4972,8 @@ void ata_qc_complete(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
>> {
>> struct ata_port *ap = qc->ap;
>>
>> + unexpect_irq(ap->irq_expect, false);
>> +
>> /* XXX: New EH and old EH use different mechanisms to
>> * synchronize EH with regular execution path.
>> *
>
> Unconditional use of unexpect_irq() here seems incorrect for some cases,
> such as sata_mv's use, where ata_qc_complete() is called multiple times
> rather than a singleton ata_qc_complete_multiple() call.
Indeed, sata_mv is calling ata_qc_complete() directly multiple times.
I still think calling unexpect_irq() from ata_qc_complete() is correct
as ata_qc_complete() is always a good indicator of completion events.
What's missing is a way for sata_mv to indicate that it has more
events to expect for, which under the current implementation only
sata_mv interrupt handler can determine. I'll see if I can convert it
to use ata_qc_complete_multiple() instead.
Thanks.
--
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
