Will Newton wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Jaehoon Chung <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Will Newton wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Jaehoon Chung <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Right...maybe not problem merging those two functions. >>>> But think not use list_add_tail(&slot->queue_node, &host->queue).. >>>> >>>> I want to know when use list_add_tail functions..in this code. >>> I think that code is from the original NXP driver and appears to be >>> used to support multiple slots attached to the same block (so you can >>> be asked to process a request for slot A while the block is busy >>> processing an earlier request for slot B). I don't have any hardware >>> setup like this, everything I have has only a single slot so I don't >>> believe I have ever seen that branch of the conditional execute. >> Oh..i also used only single slot..i want to remove spinlock_bh().. >> because if we used a only single slot, i think that spinlock_bh() not need.. >> how think about this? > > I'm not convinced that removing the multiple slot functionality will > allow you to remove the spin_lock_bh, it looks like the lock may be > protecting more than just the queue. Why do you want to remove the > spinlock?
I should not remove the spin_lock_bh in using multiple slot. If i use only one slot, i asked that need spin_lock_bh()? I think if we assume using one slot,need not them..(using quirks instead of removing them) > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
