On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 09:27:38AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 09:53 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > This sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise that I think is slightly
> > > less risky for the LLDs with the ghosts and cob-webs hanging off of
> > > them.
> >
> > They won't get tested either next release cycle. Essentially
> > near nobody uses them.
> >
> > >
> > > What do you think..?
> >
> > Standard linux practice is to simply push the locks down. That's a pretty
> > mechanical operation and shouldn't be too risky
> >
> > With some luck you could even do it with coccinelle.
>
> Precisely ... if we can do the push down now as a mechanical
> transformation we can put it in the current merge window as a low risk
> API change. This gives us optimal exposure to the rc sequence to sort
> out any problems that arise (or drivers that got missed) with the lowest
> risk of such problems actually arising. Given the corner cases and the
> late arrival of fixes, the serial number changes are just too risky for
> the current merge window. Having an API that changes depending on a
> flag is also a high risk process because it's prone to further sources
> of error.
Here's a coccinelle script I came up with that does the push down.
It still adds a bogus empty line in front of the irqflags declaration
which I haven't managed to avoid yet. Other than the it seems
to DTRT on the SCSI drivers I tried.
-Andi
@ rule1 @
struct scsi_host_template t;
identifier qc;
@@
t.queuecommand = qc;
@ rule2 @
identifier rule1.qc;
identifier cmnd;
expression E;
statement S, S2;
@@
int qc(struct scsi_cmnd *cmnd, ...)
{
... when != S
+ unsigned long irqflags;
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&cmnd->device->host->hostlock, irqflags);
S2
...
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cmnd->device->host->hostlock, irqflags);
return E;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: 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
