Hi Andrei, On Mon, Apr 11 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > So it was one of the two - > a) stick mmc_bkl_part_switch into mmc_blk_issue_secdiscard_rq, > mmc_blk_issue_discard_rq, and mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq. > b) Move claim/release into mmc_blk_issue_rq and put partition switch > code into one place. > > (b) is cleaner. What do you think? Thanks, I see. (b) is definitely fine -- I'm suggesting one patch to push claim/release up into mmc_blk_issue_rq() (which should have no other side-effects), and then a second patch to add partitioning support and also insert the single mmc_blk_part_switch() into the right place. Does that make sense? - Chris. -- 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
