Pierre Ossman wrote:
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.
Fair enough. No big deal :)
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
