On 03/05/2012 07:08 AM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 02:08 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>
>> On 03/03/2012 12:29 AM, Per Förlin wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> If start_err is set and err didn't set, maybe should be set "host->areq =
> areq".
> Then in block.c, should be check the "status".
>
> But start_err didn't be assigned anywhere, how about this?
> ...
> if (error) {
> *error = err
> if (start_err)
> *error = start_err;
> }
> ...
Thanks for your feedback.
The execution flow may look like this.
1. mmc_start_req(req1)
2. (request starts)
3. (card is removed)
4. mmc_start(req2)
5. req1 is returned with error code set, but req2 gets start_err.
In this case start_err should not be returned.
If NULL is returned from mmc_start_req the error code is discarded.
I think you may set *error=start_err and return data, but only if err is 0.
if (!err && start_err)
*error = start_err;
Br
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
