On 2020-11-20 14:35:35 [-0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 10:24:20 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > falconide_get_lock() is called by ide_lock_host() and its caller
> > (ide_issue_rq()) has already a might_sleep() check.
> >
> > stdma_lock() has wait_event() which also has a might_sleep() check.
> >
> > Remove the in_interrupt() check.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/drivers/ide/falconide.c
> > +++ b/drivers/ide/falconide.c
> > @@ -51,8 +51,6 @@ static void falconide_release_lock(void)
> > static void falconide_get_lock(irq_handler_t handler, void *data)
> > {
> > if (falconide_intr_lock == 0) {
> > - if (in_interrupt() > 0)
> > - panic("Falcon IDE hasn't ST-DMA lock in interrupt");
> > stdma_lock(handler, data);
> > falconide_intr_lock = 1;
> > }
>
> The current mainline falconide_get_lock() is very different:
I have this patch on-top of next-20201120 so it should apply. You
realize that the above hunk is against falconide_get_lock() while
the below is falconide_release_lock().
If there is something wrong with the patch (or its commit message) I'm
sorry but I don't understand your signal :)
> static void falconide_release_lock(void)
> {
> if (falconide_intr_lock == 0) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "%s: bug\n", __func__);
> return;
> }
> falconide_intr_lock = 0;
> stdma_release();
> }
Sebastian
