Hello, On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 04:21:20PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 06:07:23PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Ugh... I don't know. What we had previously is always guaranteed to > > work. I'm not really liking the fact that we're adding a possibility > > of failure here. Even if we do mempool, we would still have to > > protect it with a spinlock as mempool only guarantees one allocation > > at a time. Until we have a better solution, can we please revert back > > to where we were at least for the buffers needed from atomic context? > > In that case you'll need to drop all but the first patch from the series > as ->queuecommand can always be called from atomic context. I reverted just the last patch. The rest should be fine, right? 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
