lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectmmc: correct semantics of the mmc_host_remove
Greetings.

It appears to me that under certain circumstances mmc layer will issue requests to the host after
mmc_host_remove returns. This happens, for example, in tifm_sd driver because mmc_host may be
removed mid-transfer, as the socket shall be freed for possible reuse by different media type.
Currently, the only solution is to sleep a little somewhere after mmc_remove_host but before
mmc_free_host. I think the correct way to handle the situation is to ensure that mmc_host is never
accessed by the mmc layer after mmc_remove_host returns.


I think a easy way to handle this is to modify __mmc_claim_host to fail if the mmc_host is marked
for removal (this implies that its return value should be checked on use, which is not currently
the case everywhere). This way, mmc_host_remove can claim host, mark it as "dead" and then return
safely knowing that nobody will send any more requests to the host.

Some questions:
1. Will this suffice for the task?
2. Are there any reasons not to do this?
3. Is it possible to replace the fancy locking loop in the __mmc_claim_host with mutex based
locking (mutex does the same thing, isn't it)?




____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-01-19 03:25    [W:0.046 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site