On Thu, Dec 27 2007, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 17:18 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 01:26:47AM +0000, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
>
> >
> > > + /* now seek to take the request spinlock
> > > + * before handling ending the request */
> > > + spin_lock(&gdrom_lock);
> > > + list_del_init(&req->queuelist);
> > > + blk_requeue_request(gd.gdrom_rq, req);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + end_request(req, 0);
> > > + else
> > > + end_request(req, 1);
> > > + }
> > > + spin_unlock(&gdrom_lock);
> > > + kfree(read_command);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > This locking is all over the place. What is this lock supposed to be
> > accomplishing?
> > -
>
> I have to hold the lock to access the request queue. As the linked list
> of deferred requests is under the control of code also protected by the
> lock, it is also held to ensure manipulation of that list is serialised.
>
> The first step of the loop manipulates that linked list - so it is held
> as we re-iterate over the loop.
>
> This is pretty much the way Jens recommended I do it.
I didn't recommend the last requeue bit, it looks like a work-around due
to the way that end_request() works. The kerneldoc comment for that
function also tells you NOT to use this in new code. Use
end_dequeued_request() and get rid of the requeue, and streamline 'err'
so you can just pass it directly in.
The locking otherwise looks fine to me.
--
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]
