Should add some comments for the tag barriers (they won't be so important
if we can switch over to the explicit _lock bitops, but for now we should
make it clear).
Jens' original patch said a barrier after the test_and_clear_bit was also
required. I can't see why (and it would prevent the use of the _lock bitop).
--
Index: linux-2.6/block/ll_rw_blk.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/block/ll_rw_blk.c
+++ linux-2.6/block/ll_rw_blk.c
@@ -1085,6 +1085,12 @@ void blk_queue_end_tag(struct request_qu
bqt->tag_index[tag] = NULL;
+ /*
+ * We use test_and_clear_bit's memory ordering properties here.
+ * The tag_map bit acts as a lock for tag_index[bit], so we need
+ * a barrer before clearing the bit (precisely: release semantics).
+ * Could use clear_bit_unlock when it is merged.
+ */
if (unlikely(!test_and_clear_bit(tag, bqt->tag_map))) {
printk(KERN_ERR "%s: attempt to clear non-busy tag (%d)\n",
__FUNCTION__, tag);
@@ -1137,6 +1143,10 @@ int blk_queue_start_tag(struct request_q
return 1;
} while (test_and_set_bit(tag, bqt->tag_map));
+ /*
+ * We rely on test_and_set_bit providing lock memory ordering semantics
+ * (could use test_and_set_bit_lock when it is merged).
+ */
rq->cmd_flags |= REQ_QUEUED;
rq->tag = tag;
-
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/
