Hi Ulf. On 02/01/2012 12:23 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Adrian Hunter wrote: >> On 31/01/12 14:54, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> Adrian Hunter wrote: >>>> On 19/01/12 18:39, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>>> Once the card has been detected to be removed by the >>>>> mmc_detect_card_removed function, schedule a new detect work >>>>> immediately and without a delay to let a rescan remove the >>>>> card device as soon a possible. This will sooner prevent >>>>> further I/O requests. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@stericsson.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- >>>>> 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >>>>> index bec0bf2..265dfd8 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c >>>>> @@ -2077,6 +2077,7 @@ int _mmc_detect_card_removed(struct mmc_host *host) >>>>> int mmc_detect_card_removed(struct mmc_host *host) >>>>> { >>>>> struct mmc_card *card = host->card; >>>>> + int ret; >>>>> >>>>> WARN_ON(!host->claimed); >>>>> /* >>>>> @@ -2086,9 +2087,20 @@ int mmc_detect_card_removed(struct mmc_host *host) >>>>> if (card && !host->detect_change && !(host->caps & >>>>> MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL)) >>>>> return mmc_card_removed(card); >>>>> >>>>> - host->detect_change = 0; >>>> That line should not be removed. It is not related to your change. >>> I think it is. Since my patch is trying to make it possible to "prevent I/O >>> as soon as possible..." >> >> No, the value of detect_change does not affect the outcome >> if MMC_CAP2_DETECT_ON_ERR is set i.e.: >> >> if (card && !host->detect_change && !(host->caps & MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL) >> && !(host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_DETECT_ON_ERR)) >> >> is always false if (host->caps2 & MMC_CAP2_DETECT_ON_ERR) is true > > You are right! But MMC_CAP2_DETECT_ON_ERR is introduced in the second patch, > so we should not consider that in this patch I think!? > >> >>> Clearing the detect_change flag here will prevent the I/O layer from doing >>> further tests to see if the card is removed by using >>> "mmc_detect_card_removed -> _mmc_detect_card_removed" due to the upper if >>> sentence. >>> >>> I think this flag should only be cleared from the mmc_rescan function. >>> >>>>> + ret = mmc_card_removed(card); >>>> Calling mmc_card_removed() is not needed here since >>>> _mmc_detect_card_removed() does it anyway. >>>> >>>>> + if (!ret) { >>>>> + ret = _mmc_detect_card_removed(host); >>>>> + if (ret) { >>>>> + /* >>>>> + * Schedule a detect work as soon as possible to let a >>>>> + * rescan handle the card removal. >>>>> + */ >>>>> + cancel_delayed_work(&host->detect); >>>> Why cancel the detect work? >>> To "prevent I/O as soon as possible...". >>> >>> The detect work could have been scheduled to be run at several ms later. >>> There is no need to wait for it since we already now that card will be >>> removed when the rescan function will execute.
if (cancel_delayed_work(&host->detect)) mmc_detect_change(host, 0); isn't? >>> >>>>> + mmc_detect_change(host, 0); >>>>> + } >>>>> + } >>>>> >>>>> - return _mmc_detect_card_removed(host); >>>>> + return ret; >>>>> } >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mmc_detect_card_removed); >>>>> >>>> >>> Br >>> Ulf Hansson >>> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html