RE: [PATCH v7 0/8] Raid: enable talitos xor offload for improvingperformance

[Liu Qiang-B32616]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Williams [mailto:djbw@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:53 PM
> To: Liu Qiang-B32616
> Cc: vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx; arnd@xxxxxxxx; herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ira W. Snyder
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Raid: enable talitos xor offload for
> improving performance
> 
> On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 11:15 +0000, Liu Qiang-B32616 wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Ping?
> > Can you apply these patches? Thanks.
> >
> 
> I'm working my way through them.
> 
> The first thing I notice is that xor_chan->desc_lock is taken
> inconsistently.  I.e. spin_lock_irqsave() in talitos_process_pending()
> and spin_lock_bh() everywhere else.  Have you run these patches with
> lockdep?
Thanks for your reply.
LOCKDEP is enabled as you suggested, there is not any info about "inconsistent lock state" displayed.
I don't know whether it's enough.

I'm confused about the attribute of DMA_INTERRUPT, my understanding is this interface is only used to trigger an interrupt (make sure all former operations are finished before switching to other channels), but fsl-dma will trigger an interrupt by "Programmed Error". I'm wondering whether other hardware are same with fsl-dma (the interrupt is a normal interrupt, but not an error) i.e. xscale-iop?
If other hardware also trigger an interrupt by an abnormal error, maybe my patch 2/8 should be reverted because it violates the rules of this attribute.

BTW, could you please reply in the patch if you have any comments. Thanks.

> 
> --
> Dan
> 
> 

¢éì®&Þ~º&¶¬–+-±éÝ¥Šw®žË±Êâmébžìdz¹Þ)í…æèw*jg¬±¨¶‰šŽŠÝj/êäz¹ÞŠà2ŠÞ¨è­Ú&¢)ß«a¶Úþø®G«éh®æj:+v‰¨Šwè†Ù>Wš±êÞiÛaxPjØm¶ŸÿÃ-»+ƒùdš_