Hello, On 06/25/2010 11:48 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > My basic point is that you are implicitly changing the entire > ata_qc_complete() API, and associated underlying assumptions. > > The existing assumption, since libata day #0, is that ata_qc_complete() > works entirely within the scope of a single qc -- thus enabling multiple > calls for a single controller interrupt. Your change greatly widens the > scope to an entire port. Yeah, I'm changing that and it actually reduces code. > This isn't just an issue with sata_mv, that was just the easy example I > remember off the top of my head. sata_fsl and sata_nv also make the > same assumption. And it's a reasonable assumption, IMO. Yeah, already updating all of them. > I think an unexpect_irq() call is more appropriate outside > ata_qc_complete(). The choices we have here are.... 1. Update completion API so that libata core layer has enough information to decide expect/unexpect events. 2. Add expect/unexpect calls to individual drivers. I think #1 is much better now and in the long run. The code actually looks better too. 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
