Chris, > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Ball [mailto:cjb@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:13 PM > To: Ghorai, Sukumar > Cc: Adrian Hunter; linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Russell King - ARM Linux > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: failure of block read wait for long time > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:02:08AM +0530, Ghorai, Sukumar wrote: > > Would you please review and merge this patch [1] (attached too)? > > [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/2714 > > I've been following the thread. I believe Adrian has NACKed this patch, > by saying "It is absolutely unacceptable to return I/O errors to the > upper layers for segments that do not have errors." [Ghorai] I think Russell also mentioned his opinion. Would you please add your idea too? 1. I would prefer Adrian to explain again what this statement means, in the context - data read fail and how we make it success? 2. if data read fail for sector(x) why we have to try for sector(x+1, ..x+n)? 3. how to inform reader function which sector having the valid data out of (1...n) sectors. 4. do we have any driver/code in Linux or any other os, which give inter-leave data and return as success? > > I think it's possible to merge patches to improve the situation (such > as the idea of noticing a card disappearing earlier), but your initial > patch is not the patch to do that. You should continue to work with > Adrian -- when he's happy that a patch does not break the semantics > above, we can consider merging it. > > Thanks, > > -- > Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> > One Laptop Per Child -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
