On 03/02/2012 09:51 AM, Ulf HANSSON wrote:
> Hi Jaehoon,
>
> I did not know this. Which host driver are you using? I would very much
> appreciate of you could debug and share some result.
>
> Thanks!
>
> BR
> Ulf Hansson
>
> On 03/02/2012 09:28 AM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>> Hi Ulf.
>>
>> I tested with this patch.
>> But in my environment, this patch didn't work fine before.
>> 1) When remove/insert, didn't entered the suspend.
>> 2) When removed during something write,
>> [ 50.755067] FAT-fs (mmcblk1p1): Directory bread(block 8254) failed
>> [ 50.761235] FAT-fs (mmcblk1p1): Directory bread(block 8255) failed
>> then at next-time, didn't detect sd-card.
>>
>> Did you know this?
>> If you want more information, i will debug, and share the result.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Jaehoon Chung
>>
>> On 03/02/2012 12:44 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>>> Make sure mmc_start_req cancel the prepared job, if the request
>>> was prevented to be started due to the card has been removed.
>>>
>>> This bug was introduced in commit:
>>> mmc: allow upper layers to know immediately if card has been removed
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson<[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 35 +++++++++++++++--------------------
>>> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>> index 0b317f0..9e562ab 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
>>> @@ -249,16 +249,17 @@ static void mmc_wait_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
>>> complete(&mrq->completion);
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static void __mmc_start_req(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_request *mrq)
>>> +static int __mmc_start_req(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_request *mrq)
>>> {
>>> init_completion(&mrq->completion);
>>> mrq->done = mmc_wait_done;
>>> if (mmc_card_removed(host->card)) {
>>> mrq->cmd->error = -ENOMEDIUM;
>>> complete(&mrq->completion);
>>> - return;
>>> + return -ENOMEDIUM;
>>> }
>>> mmc_start_request(host, mrq);
>>> + return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void mmc_wait_for_req_done(struct mmc_host *host,
>>> @@ -342,6 +343,7 @@ struct mmc_async_req *mmc_start_req(struct mmc_host
>>> *host,
>>> struct mmc_async_req *areq, int *error)
>>> {
>>> int err = 0;
>>> + int start_err = 0;
>>> struct mmc_async_req *data = host->areq;
>>>
>>> /* Prepare a new request */
>>> @@ -351,30 +353,23 @@ struct mmc_async_req *mmc_start_req(struct mmc_host
>>> *host,
>>> if (host->areq) {
>>> mmc_wait_for_req_done(host, host->areq->mrq);
>>> err = host->areq->err_check(host->card, host->areq);
>>> - if (err) {
>>> - /* post process the completed failed request */
>>> - mmc_post_req(host, host->areq->mrq, 0);
>>> - if (areq)
>>> - /*
>>> - * Cancel the new prepared request, because
>>> - * it can't run until the failed
>>> - * request has been properly handled.
>>> - */
>>> - mmc_post_req(host, areq->mrq, -EINVAL);
>>> -
>>> - host->areq = NULL;
>>> - goto out;
>>> - }
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (areq)
>>> - __mmc_start_req(host, areq->mrq);
>>> + if (!err&& areq)
>>> + start_err = __mmc_start_req(host, areq->mrq);
>>>
>>> if (host->areq)
>>> mmc_post_req(host, host->areq->mrq, 0);
>>>
>>> - host->areq = areq;
>>> - out:
>>> + if (err || start_err) {
>>> + if (areq)
>>> + /* The prepared request was not started, cancel it. */
>>> + mmc_post_req(host, areq->mrq, -EINVAL);
>>> + host->areq = NULL;
There seems to be an issue when setting host->areq=NULL when __mmc_start_req
fails. host->areq == NULL indicates there are no ongoing transfers.
host->areq is used in block.c to check if there are pending requests.
This seem to work:
...
if (err || start_err) {
if (areq)
/* The prepared request was not started, cancel it. */
mmc_post_req(host, areq->mrq, -EINVAL);
}
if (err)
host->areq = NULL;
else
host->areq = areq;
...
This issue will be addressed in version 2. How to resolve it is not decided
yet.
Feel free to comment,
Per
--
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
