lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 12/12] mmc: block: add handling for two parallel block requests in issue_rw_rq
From
On 28 June 2011 10:11, Per Forlin <per.forlin@linaro.org> wrote:
> Change mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq() to become asynchronous.
> The execution flow looks like this:
> The mmc-queue calls issue_rw_rq(), which sends the request
> to the host and returns back to the mmc-queue. The mmc-queue calls
> issue_rw_rq() again with a new request. This new request is prepared,
> in isuue_rw_rq(), then it waits for the active request to complete before
> pushing it to the host. When to mmc-queue is empty it will call
> isuue_rw_rq() with req=NULL to finish off the active request
> without starting a new request.
>
> Signed-off-by: Per Forlin <per.forlin@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/card/block.c |   80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  drivers/mmc/card/queue.c |   17 +++++++---
>  drivers/mmc/card/queue.h |    1 +
>  3 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> index 7ed2c68..825741e 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/card/block.c
...
> @@ -1066,6 +1085,13 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req)
>                        ret = __blk_end_request(req, 0,
>                                                brq->data.bytes_xfered);
>                        spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
> +                       if (status == MMC_BLK_SUCCESS && ret) {
> +                               /* If this happen it is a bug */
> +                               printk(KERN_ERR "%s BUG rq_tot %d d_xfer %d\n",
> +                                      __func__, blk_rq_bytes(req),
> +                                      brq->data.bytes_xfered);
+ rqc = NULL
If there is a new request (rqc != NULL) it will already be started
when reaching this point.
If rqc is set it will be started again at start_new_req.

I wonder if this paranoia check is necessary. If "status ==
MMC_BLK_SUCCESS" all bytes are transferred and no error returned from
mmc layer.
__blk_end_request would always return 0 in this case, please comment
if you disagree.

...
> + start_new_req:
> +       if (rqc) {
> +               mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep(mq->mqrq_cur, card, 0, mq);
> +               mmc_start_req(card->host, &mq->mqrq_cur->mmc_active, NULL);
> +       }
> +
>        return 0;
>  }

/Per
--
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: 2011-06-28 11:49    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans