On Wed, Feb 08 2006, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 09:56 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Hmm, this (and further up) could fail, yet you don't check. > > By and large, you have process context, so this isn't going to be a > problem. > > > I don't think this API is very nice to be honest, there's no good way to > > handle failures - you can't just sleep and loop retry the execute if you > > are in_interrupt(). I'd prefer passing in a work_queue_work (with a > > better name :-) that has been allocated at a reliable time during > > initialization. > > Yes, I agree ... however, the failure is less prevalent in the new code > than the old. The problem is that we may need to execute multiple puts > for a single target from irq contex, so under this scheme you need a wqw > (potentially) for every get. > > I could solve this by binding the API more tightly into the device > model, so the generic device contains the wqw and it is told that the > release function of the final put must be called in process context, but > that's an awful lot of code changes. Yeah it does get a lot more complicated. I guess I'm fine with the current change, but please just keep it in SCSI then. It's not the sort of thing you'd want to advertise as an exported API. -- Jens Axboe - : 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
