Stefan Richter wrote: > Sounds to me like either struct xyz_host { atomic_t removed; } would do > the job, or that actually wider regions of mmc_host_remove() and > mmc_detect_change() need to be serialized. >
AFAIK, an atomic_t doesn't guarantee any ordering, just atomicity. So an atomic_t with a barrier would be sufficient. But barriers are mostly voodoo that few people understand ;) -- -- 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/