Re: [PATCH] 2.5.30 IDE 113

From: Marcin Dalecki (
Date: Tue Aug 06 2002 - 05:47:00 EST

Uz.ytkownik Jens Axboe napisa?:
> On Tue, Aug 06 2002, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
>>>After all ide_raw_taskfile only gets used for REQ_SPECIAL request
>>>types. This does *not* contain normal data request from block IO.
>>>As of master slave issues - well we have the data pre allocated per
>>>device not per channel! If q->request_fn would properly return the
>>>error count instead of void, we could even get rid ot the
>>>checking for rq->errors after finishment... But well that's
>>>entierly different story.
>>For example do_cmd_ioctl() invokes ide_raw_taskfile, without any locking.
>>Two programs, both issuing HDIO_DRIVE_CMD at same time, will compete
>>over one drive->srequest struct: you'll get same drive->srequest structure
>>submitted twice to blk_insert_request (hm, Jens, will this trigger
>>BUG, or will this just damage request list?).
> Just silently damage request list. We _could_ easily add code to detect
> this, but it's not been a problem in the past so not worth looking for.
> AFAICS, Petr is completely right wrt this race.

For the ioctl case yes. But:

1. We already look for blk_queue_empty there.
2. We have just to deal properly with the queue plugging there
to close it up.
3. I will just add spin locking on ide_lock to maintain that no two
ioctl can overlapp at all.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:31 EST