Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 May 2007 18:05:11 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] MMC updates |
| |
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 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/
| |