Chris and Adrian, [..snip..] > > > -----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? > [Ghorai] please reply with your input on my/ Russell's suggestion? > > > > 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
