Hi Chris, On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Looks unobjectionable to me, I'd take it with your ACK -- the only > thought I had was whether it might make sense to add a test to mmc_test > to check that reliable writes make it out successfully with the same > data they went in with; it would be awful if there was a data loss bug > in the code that we didn't catch because we aren't choosing to use > REQ_FUA/REQ_META. > > Then I wondered if there are *other* types of request and data integrity > that we should be growing mmc_test to handle, and then I was wondering > whether this is the realm of mmc_test at all. Any thoughts on that? :) I took a look at mmc_test. It seems like it was meant more to test cards, rather than block.c functionality, as it issues all MMC requests by itself, instead of submitting via block layer. It would be separately an interesting an idea to implement an MMC reliable write test to mmc_test, but it wouldn't help much with bugs in block.c. What do you think? A -- 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
