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
-
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]
