On Fri, May 27 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >On Fri, May 27 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >>Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>
> >>>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?
> >>
> >>Fine with me.
> >>
> >>Keep in mind that the attached patch was applied recently...
> >
> >
> >Yeah, the two hunks from the ncq patch would look like this then. Ok?
>
> ACK (modulo my distaste for 'depth' and 'ncq_depth', of course... :))
Ok, lets get that fixed then... Would you like just a single
ap->queue_depth and a ATA_DFLAG_NCQ_IN_FLIGHT type flag instead?
--
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]
