On Thu, May 26 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >+ return 0;
> >+}
> >+
> >+/**
> > * ata_bus_probe - Reset and probe ATA bus
> > * @ap: Bus to probe
> > *
> >@@ -2753,6 +2830,16 @@
> > struct ata_port *ap = qc->ap;
> > unsigned int tag, do_clear = 0;
> >
> >+ if (likely(qc->flags & ATA_QCFLAG_ACCOUNT)) {
> >+ if (qc->flags & ATA_QCFLAG_NCQ) {
> >+ assert(ap->ncq_depth);
> >+ ap->ncq_depth--;
> >+ } else {
> >+ assert(ap->depth);
> >+ ap->depth--;
> >+ }
> >+ }
>
> why is this accounting conditional?
I double checked this. If you agree to move the setting of QCFLAG_ACTIVE
_after_ successful ap->ops->qc_issue(qc) and clear it _after_
__ata_qc_complete(qc) then I can just use that bit and kill
ATA_QCFLAG_ACCOUNT.
What do you think?
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
