On 27 July 2011 01:17, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2011/7/27 Per Forlin <per.forlin@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> This adds support to inject data errors after a completed host transfer.
>> The mmc core will return error even though the host transfer is successful.
>> This simple fault injection proved to be very useful to test the
>> non-blocking error handling in the mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq().
>> Random faults can also test how the host driver handles pre_req()
>> and post_req() in case of errors.
>
> Looks good but I have one question.
>
>> @@ -304,6 +307,10 @@ struct mmc_host {
>>
>> struct mmc_async_req *areq; /* active async req */
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_MMC_REQUEST
>> + u8 make_it_fail;
>> + struct fault_attr fail_mmc_request;
>> +#endif
>> unsigned long private[0] ____cacheline_aligned;
>> };
>
> I think make_it_fail is not needed anymore because if fail_attr is
> defined per-host then you can enable it by setting probability=0
> or times=0 per-host.
>
Yes, if there are many debugfs entries, one for each host make_if_fail
is no longer necessary.
There is an issue with patch v4 now when fault_attr is per-host.
Without your patch the entry is still created at the root but there
are many instances of fault-attr. I think it's better to wait for your
patch to make it into the mmc-next tree before submitting my patch. I
will prepare a patch v5 that depends on your upcoming changes in
fault-inject with a note that states the dependency.
Would you mind adding "patch 1/3" (export_symbol_gpl) to your
patch-set since it depends on the new function names in your patch?
If not, I can resend the patch on top of your changes to match the new
function names if you prefer to have this patch separate.
Please let me know.
Thanks,
Per
--
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
