From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:13:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:13:46 -0400 Received: from relay03.cablecom.net ([62.2.33.103]:8458 "EHLO relay03.cablecom.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:13:32 -0400 Message-Id: <200108281813.f7SIDjY03688@mail.swissonline.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Christian Widmer Reply-To: cwidmer@iiic.ethz.ch To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: does the request function block Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 20:13:45 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org does the request function of a bock device driver to be attomic or may it block? in the linux device driver 2 it says that it must be attomic and may not block. that makes sense to me since it also sais that the bottom- half of the driver will call the request function too. but this is not realy nessesery when i remove all request before releasing the io_request_lock. on the other side block devices like nbd or brbd do send date using a socket in there request function. who is right and why?