On 23 August 2017 at 08:54, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 22/08/17 14:13, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 10 August 2017 at 14:08, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> + void (*cqe_recovery_notifier)(struct mmc_host *, >>> + struct mmc_request *); >> >> Normally we don't put callbacks in the struct mmc_host that someone >> else than the host driver should assign - so this feels a bit upside >> down. >> >> Is there any reason to why you didn't want to add a new API? Something >> like mmc_cqe_recover(), which the host driver could call. > > That would make the host driver dependent on the block driver. There needs > to be a function pointer, even if we wrap it in an API. Okay, I see. I guess we could put such pointer somewhere closer to the mmc request queue. Anyway, I didn't find out how this pointer was being protected from concurrent access or perhaps that is managed via mmc_claim|release_host()? Moreover, I could find it ever it being reset to NULL. Kind regards 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
