Hi Andreas,
On 6 September 2016 at 12:34, Andreas Mohr <a...@lisas.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 10:55:11AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> In order to clean up the mmc_erase() function and do some optimization
>> for erase size alignment, factor out the guts of erase size alignment
>> into mmc_align_erase_size() function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linaro.org>
>> Tested-by: Shawn Lin <shawn....@rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 60
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> index 7d7209d..5f93eef 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>> @@ -2202,6 +2202,37 @@ out:
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> +static unsigned int mmc_align_erase_size(struct mmc_card *card,
>> + unsigned int *from,
>> + unsigned int *to,
>> + unsigned int nr)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int from_new = *from, nr_new = nr, rem;
>> +
>> + rem = from_new % card->erase_size;
>> + if (rem) {
>> + rem = card->erase_size - rem;
>> + from_new += rem;
>> + if (nr_new > rem)
>> + nr_new -= rem;
>> + else
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + rem = nr_new % card->erase_size;
>> + if (rem)
>> + nr_new -= rem;
>> +
>> + if (nr_new == 0)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */
>> + *to = from_new + nr_new - 1;
>> + *from = from_new;
>> +
>> + return nr_new;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * mmc_erase - erase sectors.
>> * @card: card to erase
>> @@ -2234,31 +2265,14 @@ int mmc_erase(struct mmc_card *card, unsigned int
>> from, unsigned int nr,
>> }
>>
>> if (arg == MMC_ERASE_ARG) {
>> - rem = from % card->erase_size;
>> - if (rem) {
>> - rem = card->erase_size - rem;
>> - from += rem;
>> - if (nr > rem)
>> - nr -= rem;
>> - else
>> - return 0;
>> - }
>> - rem = nr % card->erase_size;
>> - if (rem)
>> - nr -= rem;
>> + nr = mmc_align_erase_size(card, &from, &to, nr);
>> + if (nr == 0)
>> + return 0;
>> + } else {
>> + /* 'from' and 'to' are inclusive */
>> + to -= 1;
>> }
>>
>> - if (nr == 0)
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> - to = from + nr;
>> -
>> - if (to <= from)
>> - return -EINVAL;
>
> Hmm, this is swallowing -EINVAL behaviour
> i.e., now possibly violating protocol?
I didn't see what situation will make variable 'to' is less than
'from' since I think variable 'nr' is always larger than 0, right? If
so, we should remove this useless checking. Thanks.
>
> (this may easily be ok - haven't done an extensive review -
> but since the commit has that characteristic change,
> the commit message should contain that detail)
>
> Thanks for the cleanup work & HTH,
>
> Andreas Mohr
--
Baolin.wang
Best Regards
