Re: [GIT PULL] MMC updates

[Nick Piggin]

Pierre Ossman wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > If you want to ensure you always only modify host->removed from under
> > the spinlock, it would be enforcable by introducing an accessor function
> > and doing a BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked()) in there.
> >
> > If you just want to ensure that host->removed is 0 at this point, you
> > shouldn't need any spinlocks AFAIKS... that way you can probably afford
> > to move it out from CONFIG_MMC_DEBUG and get wider testing.
>
>
> The host->removed member is only used for this simple test. It is set in
> mmc_host_remove() to indicate that the removal process has begun. At
> this point it is invalid to call mmc_detect_change() (the place this
> patch fixes). So the spinlocks are mostly there so that things are
> properly ordered when we go SMP. Some creative barriers would probably
> work as well, but I find spinlocks more "normal" and hence more readable.

Fair enough. No big deal :)

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/