On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> And now it is crashing at mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep() + 0x20 so I suspect it is one
> of
> these:
>
> struct mmc_blk_request *brq = &mqrq->brq;
> struct request *req = mqrq->req;
> struct mmc_
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> Linus Walleij (6):
>>> mmc: block: break out mmc_blk_rw_cmd_abort()
>>> mmc: block: break out mmc_blk_rw_start_new()
>>> mmc: block: do not assign mq_rq when aborting command
>>> mmc: block: inline command abortions
>>> mmc: block:
Hi Ulf,
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 08:58:16AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 26 January 2017 at 09:07, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 24 January 2017 at 11:17, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> The function mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq() is hopelessly convoluted and
> >> need to be refactored to it can be understood by
+Maxime
On 26 January 2017 at 09:07, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 24 January 2017 at 11:17, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> The function mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq() is hopelessly convoluted and
>> need to be refactored to it can be understood by humans.
>>
>> In the process I found some weird magic return values p
On 24 January 2017 at 11:17, Linus Walleij wrote:
> The function mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq() is hopelessly convoluted and
> need to be refactored to it can be understood by humans.
>
> In the process I found some weird magic return values passed
> around for no good reason.
>
> Things are more readable
The function mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq() is hopelessly convoluted and
need to be refactored to it can be understood by humans.
In the process I found some weird magic return values passed
around for no good reason.
Things are more readable after this.
This work is done towards the goal of breaking the
