On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:55:11AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > In order to clean up the mmc_erase() function and do some optimization > for erase size alignment, factor out the guts of erase size alignment > into mmc_align_erase_size() function. > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <[email protected]> > Tested-by: Shawn Lin <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 60 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > index 7d7209d..5f93eef 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c > @@ -2202,6 +2202,37 @@ out: > return err; > } > > +static unsigned int mmc_align_erase_size(struct mmc_card *card, > + unsigned int *from, > + unsigned int *to, > + unsigned int nr) > +{ > + unsigned int from_new = *from, nr_new = nr, rem; > + > + rem = from_new % card->erase_size; > + if (rem) { > + rem = card->erase_size - rem; > + from_new += rem; > + if (nr_new > rem) > + nr_new -= rem; > + else > + return 0; > + } > + > + rem = nr_new % card->erase_size; > + if (rem) > + nr_new -= rem; > + > + if (nr_new == 0) > + return 0; > + > + /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */ > + *to = from_new + nr_new - 1; > + *from = from_new; > + > + return nr_new; > +} > + > /** > * mmc_erase - erase sectors. > * @card: card to erase > @@ -2234,31 +2265,14 @@ int mmc_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int > from, unsigned int nr, > } > > if (arg == MMC_ERASE_ARG) { > - rem = from % card->erase_size; > - if (rem) { > - rem = card->erase_size - rem; > - from += rem; > - if (nr > rem) > - nr -= rem; > - else > - return 0; > - } > - rem = nr % card->erase_size; > - if (rem) > - nr -= rem; > + nr = mmc_align_erase_size(card, &from, &to, nr); > + if (nr == 0) > + return 0; > + } else { > + /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */ > + to -= 1; > } > > - if (nr == 0) > - return 0; > - > - to = from + nr; > - > - if (to <= from) > - return -EINVAL;
Hmm, this is swallowing -EINVAL behaviour i.e., now possibly violating protocol? (this may easily be ok - haven't done an extensive review - but since the commit has that characteristic change, the commit message should contain that detail) Thanks for the cleanup work & HTH, Andreas Mohr
