On 11-04-26 11:41 AM, Bruce Stenning wrote: > Tejun wrote: >> Does the following patch resolve the problem? >> >> Thanks. > > I have applied that patch, keeping Mark's mv_set_main_irq_mask spinlock patch > in place. I would not like to commit absolutely, for obvious reasons, but I > have abused the port considerably and have not been able to coax it into > locking up. I'm thinking perhaps I should dust off that spinlock patch and send something more proper like that upstream. With that mask register shared among the ports, it is really hard to keep track of when we're locked and when not. So having a lock just for the shared part of the chip has got to be a less error-prone way to do it. I'll pull down a recent -git to patch against first. Cheers -- 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
