> It's a bit disappointing that libata's lock profile in this patch is > quite different than that of current upstream: with your patch, > libata holds the scsi host lock for a considerably longer period of > time, while also holding the ATA port/host spinlock. The goal here is not really what comes out of this patch, but dropping the host lock completely. This is just the first step. > > IOW, it's doing the exact opposite of what the previous code did > (release the scsi host lock, before acquiring the ATA port/host > spinlock), not at all an equivalent transformation. > > The following sequence would seem to better preserve the existing > lock profile, correct? Possibly, but it's not a mechanic change. -Andi -- 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
