On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:18:38AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 08:49 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 06 2005, James Bottomley wrote: > > > My proposal is to correct this by moving the data back to the correct > > > object, and make any object using it hold a reference, so this would > > > make the provider of the block request_fn hold a reference to the queue > > > and initialise the queue lock pointer with the lock currently in the > > > queue. Drivers that still use a global lock would be unaffected. This > > > > But this is the current requirement, as long as you use the queue you > > must hold a reference to it. > > Exactly! that's why I think this solution must work independently of > subsystem. > > > What do you think of the attached, then? Allow NULL lock to be passed > > in, in which case we use the queue private lock (that no one should ever > > ever touch). It looks a little confusing that > > sdev->request_queue->queue_lock now protects some sdev structures, if > > you want we can retain ->sdev_lock but as a pointer to the queue lock > > instead. > > Looks good. How about the attached modification? It makes sdev_lock a > pointer that uses the queue lock which we null out when we release it > (not that I don't trust SCSI or anything ;-) Do we really need the sdev_lock pointer? There's just a single place where we're using it and the code would be much more clear if it had just one name. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
