Hi Ulf,
On 09/09/15 13:42, Ulf Hansson wrote:
[snip]
>> +static int mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct block_device *bdev,
>> + struct mmc_ioc_cmd __user *ic_ptr)
>> +{
>> + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata;
>> + struct mmc_blk_data *md;
>> + struct mmc_card *card;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The caller must have CAP_SYS_RAWIO, and must be calling this on the
>> + * whole block device, not on a partition. This prevents overspray
>> + * between sibling partitions.
>> + */
>> + if ((!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO)) || (bdev != bdev->bd_contains))
>> + return -EPERM;
>> +
>> + idata = mmc_blk_ioctl_copy_from_user(ic_ptr);
>> + if (IS_ERR(idata))
>> + return PTR_ERR(idata);
>> +
>> + md = mmc_blk_get(bdev->bd_disk);
>> + if (!md) {
>> + err = -EINVAL;
>> + goto cmd_err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + card = md->queue.card;
>> + if (IS_ERR(card)) {
>> + err = PTR_ERR(card);
>> + goto cmd_done;
>> + }
>> +
>> + mmc_claim_host(card->host);
>
> As __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd() already does mmc_get_card(), you don't need
> mmc_claim_host() here.
Thinking about this some more, does it make sense to have a
mmc_get_card() above and then remove the one from __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd()?
The mmc_blk_ioctl_multi_cmd() needs to call mmc_get_card() before
calling __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd() and so currently we are calling
mmc_get_card() twice in the case of mmc_blk_ioctl_multi_cmd() which
seems unnecessary.
Cheers
Jon
--
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
