On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:44:24 +0100 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 :)
>
oops, sorry, the MIME-encoded email messed me up, then I went and
confused myself. Got it now, thanks ;)
