Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 09:37:51AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 15:29 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:06:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
The patch "mmc: core: move ->request() call from atomic context",
is the reason to why this change is possible. This simplifies the
error handling code execution path quite a lot and potentially also
fixes some error handling hang problems.
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This doesn't look right:
void mmc_request_done(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_request *mrq)
{
if (err && cmd->retries) {
host->ops->request(host, mrq);
This is NOT how it looks at mmc-next. You need to test with Adrian
Hunters patch which the commit refers two.
In that case, how can I take the patch to mmci if it depends on something
in another tree?
I don't know. But how do you update your tree from next normally? I
believe the problem is more related to that the mmc-next tree is now on
a temporary git. If you do not update your tree how shall we be able to
continue with integration of new patches that depends on mmc patches
from "next"?
BR
Uffe
--
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
