On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 18/05/17 11:21, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> It's better to do what everyone else does and let the core do this
>> allocation of extra data (tag) instead.
>
> I agree it is much nicer, but the extra bounce buffer
On 18/05/17 11:21, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Adrian Hunter
> wrote:
>> On 10/05/17 11:24, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> The mmc_queue_req is a per-request state container the MMC core uses
>>> to carry bounce buffers, pointers to asynchronous
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 10/05/17 11:24, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> The mmc_queue_req is a per-request state container the MMC core uses
>> to carry bounce buffers, pointers to asynchronous requests and so on.
>> Currently allocated as a
On 10 May 2017 at 10:24, Linus Walleij wrote:
> The mmc_queue_req is a per-request state container the MMC core uses
> to carry bounce buffers, pointers to asynchronous requests and so on.
> Currently allocated as a static array of objects, then as a request
> comes in,
The mmc_queue_req is a per-request state container the MMC core uses
to carry bounce buffers, pointers to asynchronous requests and so on.
Currently allocated as a static array of objects, then as a request
comes in, a mmc_queue_req is assigned to it, and used during the
lifetime of the request.