Re: [PATCH] mmc_spi: do propper retry managment in the block layer- 3rd try
From: Matt Fleming
Date: Sat May 30 2009 - 18:16:24 EST
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:52:26AM +0200, Wolfgang Mües wrote:
> So somewhere I will need to have an error code filter based on the issued
> command (class). Should this be in the driver(s)? Or should it be at the
> location of the caller, in block.c?
It should be in the function/file that makes the most sense.
> The advantages of putting it in block.c is that
> a) The command (class) is typically implicit given in the function, and no
> need for a switch() statement.
> b) Only one handling for different drivers, not scattered through all(?) host
You know what, I was going to say that only block transaction stuff is
in block.c, but that's not true, there's loads of MMC protocol
knowledge in there too. I don't think there's a better place than
I would expect all this error handling and intimate knowledge of the
MMC/SD protocol to be in drivers/mmc/core, but that's not the
case. Which just seems strange to me.
> I must admit that I have difficulties to see a clear layering violation.
> There is no clear definition of which error codes should be reported to the
> block layer. There is only a short list of codes with special meaning, but
> not a full list of all used codes.
> And some drivers are reporting codes like ENOMEM etc...
> I see that Pierre wants to have a more smaller interface between drivers and
> the upper layer, reporting only classes of errors, to have a more smaller and
> cleaner code in the upper layer. But I think that this is a patch of its own,
> and not in the context of the retry patch.
I agree. That could be a separate patch.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/