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. Rgds -- -- Pierre Ossman Linux kernel, MMC maintainer http://www.kernel.org PulseAudio, core developer http://pulseaudio.org rdesktop, core developer http://www.rdesktop.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/