On 10/30/2012 09:45 AM, Per Forlin wrote:
> minor clarification,
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Per Forlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Is the following flow feasible?
>>
>> in mmc_start_req():
>> --------------
>> if (rqc == NULL && not_resend)
> && request_is_ongoing (in case of resend request is never ongoing
>
>> wait_for_both_mmc_and_arrival_of_new_req
> We should wake up if any of the two events occur.
>
>> else
>> wait_only_for_mmc
>>
>> if (arrival_of_new_req) {
>> set flag to indicate fetch-new_req
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> -----------------
>>
>> in queue.c:
>> if (fetch-new_req)
>> don't overwrite previous req.
>>
>
> This is somewhat a subset of the your patch. Maybe I'm missing parts
> of the complexity.
> I haven't figured out why a new mmc_start_data_req() is needed. A new
> mechanism for waiting is required.
You're right, it was no reason to add new function, we can use
mmc_start_req() and just change mechanism for waiting, I will fix this
to minimize changes.
--
Konstantin Dorfman,
QUALCOMM ISRAEL, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center,
Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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
