On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 14:25:58 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - spin_lock_init(&sch->lock);
> > + sch->schid = schid;
> > + if (cio_is_console(schid)) {
> > + sch->lock = cio_get_console_lock();
> > + } else {
> > + err = cio_create_sch_lock(sch);
> > + if (err)
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> >
> > I did not spend a huge amount of time looking at this but this
> > is the only reason I found for sch->lock being made a pointer. There may
> > be others, I'm just saying that is all I've found.
>
> Author of 2ec2298412e1 here. If I don't completely misremember things,
> this was for the orphanage stuff (i.e. ccw devices that were still kept
> as disconnected, like dasd still in use, that had to be moved from their
> old subchannel object because a different device appeared on that
> subchannel.) That orphanage used a single dummy subchannel for all ccw
> devices moved there.
>
> I have no idea how the current common I/O layer works, but that might
> give you a hint about what to look for :)
Yes, that is what the commit states and what the series is about. I hope
Vineeth can give us some answers :) maybe even out of the top of his
head... If not, I would trust his judgment on whether figuring things
out is worthwhile or not.
Regards,
Halil
