On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Ok, great! Will do. 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
