Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
I put some more thought into this change... details below...

On Sat,  5 Feb 2005 11:15:56 +0900 (KST), Tejun Heo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


@@ -705,24 +705,17 @@ static int idedisk_issue_flush(request_q
{
       ide_drive_t *drive = q->queuedata;
       struct request *rq;
+       ide_task_t args;
       int ret;


ide_task_t task please


Okay.


@@ -730,8 +723,9 @@ static int idedisk_issue_flush(request_q
        * if we failed and caller wants error offset, get it
        */
       if (ret && error_sector)
-               *error_sector = ide_get_error_location(drive, rq->cmd);
+               *error_sector = ide_get_error_location(drive, &args);

+ rq->special = NULL; /* just in case */


In what case?


As the request is allocated and freed by the generic block layer, I was kinda worrying about cases where the request outlives blk_put_request() and somehow somebody accesses ->special. Probably unnecessary but dangling pointers pointing stack area really scares me.



@@ -55,22 +55,19 @@
#include <asm/io.h>
#include <asm/bitops.h>

-static void ide_fill_flush_cmd(ide_drive_t *drive, struct request *rq)
+void ide_init_flush_task(ide_drive_t *drive, ide_task_t *args)


ide_task_t *task


@@ -80,7 +77,9 @@ static void ide_fill_flush_cmd(ide_drive
static struct request *ide_queue_flush_cmd(ide_drive_t *drive,
                                          struct request *rq, int post)
{
-       struct request *flush_rq = &HWGROUP(drive)->wrq;
+       ide_hwgroup_t *hwgroup = drive->hwif->hwgroup;
+       struct request *flush_rq = &hwgroup->flush_rq;
+       ide_task_t *args = &hwgroup->flush_args;


ide_task_t *task


@@ -221,41 +223,37 @@ static void ide_complete_pm_request (ide
/*
 * FIXME: probably move this somewhere else, name is bad too :)
 */
-u64 ide_get_error_location(ide_drive_t *drive, char *args)
+u64 ide_get_error_location(ide_drive_t *drive, ide_task_t *args)


ide_task_t *task


{
       u32 high, low;
       u8 hcyl, lcyl, sect;
-       u64 sector;

-       high = 0;
-       hcyl = args[5];
-       lcyl = args[4];
-       sect = args[3];
-
-       if (ide_id_has_flush_cache_ext(drive->id)) {
-               low = (hcyl << 16) | (lcyl << 8) | sect;
-               HWIF(drive)->OUTB(drive->ctl|0x80, IDE_CONTROL_REG);
-               high = ide_read_24(drive);
-       } else {
-               u8 cur = HWIF(drive)->INB(IDE_SELECT_REG);
-               if (cur & 0x40)
-                       low = (hcyl << 16) | (lcyl << 8) | sect;
-               else {
-                       low = hcyl * drive->head * drive->sect;
-                       low += lcyl * drive->sect;
-                       low += sect - 1;
-               }
-       }
+       if (ide_id_has_flush_cache_ext(drive->id) &&
+           (drive->capacity64 >= (1UL << 28)))


Please just use if (drive->addressing), it is simpler and still correct.
Since we are now using ide_task_t 'high' will be 0 when
ide_id_has_flush_cache() == 0 and drive->addressing == 1
(such combination is unlikely but...).  Also thanks to this change
ide_get_error_location() becomes a really *generic* helper and
can be later used by other code.


Sure.


@@ -1201,9 +1224,14 @@ extern ide_startstop_t ide_do_reset (ide
extern void ide_init_drive_cmd (struct request *rq);

/*
+ * This function initializes @task to WIN_FLUSH_CACHE[_EXT] command.
+ */
+void ide_init_flush_task(ide_drive_t *drive, ide_task_t *args);


comment is wrong and not needed,

void ide_init_flush_task(ide_drive_t *, ide_task_t *);

should be enough


Okay.


There is one problem left with this change - FLUSH_CACHE_{EXT} command handling becomes slower for drive's supporting LBA48 (also next patches make ide_{task,cmd}_ioctl() slower). Why is so? See do_rw_taskfile(), HOB registers are written/read unconditionally if (drive->addressing == 1). This can be fixed by i.e. adding 'unsigned long flags' to ide_task_t and IDE_TASK_LBA48 flag. BTW this fix is needed also to implement LBA48 optimization for read/write requests (not writing HOB registers when not needed).

IMHO there are some things worth mentioning in the patch description,
do_rw_taskfile() vs execute_drive_cmd()+ide_cmd() details:
some registers are written now in different order and timeout is bumped
(these changes shouldn't make any harm but I'm paranoid :).


Yeah, sure.

 Thanks.

--
tejun

-
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/

Reply via email to