lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRE: [PATCH v5 2/2] mmc: core: Support packed command for eMMC4.5 device
    From
    >> > @@ -1291,10 +1657,42 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq(struct
    >> mmc_queue
    >> *mq, struct request *rqc)
    >> > * A block was successfully transferred.
    >> > */
    >> > mmc_blk_reset_success(md, type);
    >> > - spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
    >> > - ret = __blk_end_request(req, 0,
    >> > +
    >> > + if (mq_rq->packed_cmd != MMC_PACKED_NONE) {
    >> > + int idx = mq_rq->packed_fail_idx, i = 0;
    >> > + ret = 0;
    >> > + while (!list_empty(&mq_rq->packed_list)) {
    >> > + prq = list_entry_rq(
    >> > + mq_rq->packed_list.next);
    >> > + if (idx == i) {
    >> > + /* retry from error index */
    >> > + mq_rq->packed_num -= idx;
    >> > + mq_rq->req = prq;
    >> > + ret = 1;
    >> > + break;
    >> > + }
    >> > + list_del_init(&prq->queuelist);
    >> > + spin_lock_irq(&md->lock);
    >> > + __blk_end_request(prq, 0,
    >> > + blk_rq_bytes(prq));
    >> > + spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock);
    >> > + i++;
    >> > + }
    >> > + if (mq_rq->packed_num == MMC_PACKED_N_SINGLE) {
    >> > + prq = list_entry_rq(
    >> > + mq_rq->packed_list.next);
    >> You already get the prq inside the while. There is no need to do it
    >> again.
    > Right, but if while loop isn't taken, then prq can be used uninitialized.
    > Though that case wouldn't happen actually, we don't want to see the
    > compiling error.

    The loop must be taken since we are inside the case of packed commands so
    the list can't be empty.

    If the compiler complained, you can set prq to be the first request before
    entering the loop instead of setting it again in the if that follows the
    loop. It will probably be more understood.
    If you decide to leave it as is, I would also add the following to the if:
    + mq_rq->req = prq;
    + ret = 1;
    Otherwise it seems like there could be a bug in cases where the loop is
    not taken (since prq is the only one that is set) and the code is less
    understood.

    Thanks,
    Maya Erez
    Consultant for Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
    Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-02 21:01    [W:0.028 / U:32.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site