linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc : Use wait_for_completion_timeout() instead of wait_for

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKYAXd9ae_b_gq4GwXVjM4XDQAypOpKMEGz2_SN0uyV03OAPkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:14:46 +0900
From:	NamJae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To:	Murali Krishna Palnati <palnati.muralikrishna@...il.com>
Cc:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...ricsson.com>,
	"cjb@...top.org" <cjb@...top.org>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc : Use wait_for_completion_timeout() instead of
 wait_for_completion in case of write.

2011/9/21 NamJae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>:
> 2011/9/21 Murali Krishna Palnati <palnati.muralikrishna@...il.com>:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM, NamJae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> wrote:
>>> It may be no good choice that sw timer is on host driver. also I don't
>>> know what is different.
>>
>> It helps to have this functionality implemented at host controller
>> layer so that the host layer is informed about this. If we just end
>> the request from the MMC core layer, host controller driver doesnt
>> even kow about that and it remains in the same state processing the
>> request (that already got timed out at core layer). It is good to have
>> the host layer trigger this timeout, do necessary clean up and then
>> duly end the request by informing the core layer by calling
>> mmc_request_done().
>>
>> Let me put the question in this way. If the core layer times out
>> (because of wait_for_completion_timeout) then in the patch that you
>> have submitted, i dont see how the host layer knows about it.
>> Apologize, if i sound like a broken record saying the same thing again
>> and again.
>>
>
> I understand what you want. So I will add emergency_cleanup for host
> driver like this.
> struct mmc_host_ops {
> ................
> .................
> void (*emergency_cleanup)(struct mmc_host *host);
>
> }
>
> When timeout error happen, mmc core will call this function as soon as
> sending stop cmd.
> And when timeout error happen by wait_for_completion_timeout, calling
> mmc_request_done is not needed.
>
> Thanks.
>

I'll follow the opinion of chris.

Thanks.
--
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/