Stefan Richter wrote:
> Sounds to me like either struct xyz_host { atomic_t removed; } would do
> the job, or that actually wider regions of mmc_host_remove() and
> mmc_detect_change() need to be serialized.
>
AFAIK, an atomic_t doesn't guarantee any ordering, just atomicity. So an
atomic_t with a barrier would be sufficient. But barriers are mostly
voodoo that few people understand ;)
--
-- 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 [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]
