[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46417D97.9090108@drzeus.cx>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 09:51:51 +0200
From: Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MMC updates
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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists