On 23/08/17 15:48, Ulf Hansson wrote: > 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. Another possibility is to put in into struct mmc_request like the "done" callback. > > 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()? It is assumed CQE is only used by the card driver so the callback can be set / reset in the card driver's probe / remove. > Moreover, I could find it ever it being > reset to NULL. Yeah, doesn't look like it gets reset. -- 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
