On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 09:54 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 11:53 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 11:13 -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > More importantly, if we already know that the medium is not present or
> > > > > has been changed since it was last used, then there's no reason to
> > > > > call
> > > > > sd_sync_cache() at all.
> > > >
> > > > Like this?
> > >
> > > Yes, I like this a lot better, except I would put the test for
> > > !sdkp->media_present in sd_suspend_common() -- no need to print the
> >
> > But your observation that it makes no sense while no medium is present
> > is valid whatever be the reason for wanting to flush.
>
> So do the test in both places.
Code duplication for what reasons?
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
