> -----Original Message----- > From: Ulf Hansson [mailto:ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 3:34 AM > To: Cunningham, Joel <Joel.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: update sdio_claim_irq documentation > > On 14 February 2018 at 15:53, Cunningham, Joel > <Joel.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: linux-mmc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-mmc- > >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ulf Hansson > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 4:06 AM > >> To: Cunningham, Joel <Joel.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: update sdio_claim_irq documentation > >> > >> On 24 January 2018 at 23:57, Cunningham, Joel > >> <Joel.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > I have a 3rd party driver which calls sdio_claim_host (and > >> sdio_release_host) in its IRQ handler, the comment documentation for > >> sdio_claim_irq() caused confusion about whether this was allowed, > >> even though the implementation supports recursive claims and the > >> driver is functioning without issue. > >> > > >> > If the intention is that recursive claims are supported, the below > >> > patch > >> (based on mmc-next) updates the documentation to demote the "must > not" > >> to a "does not need to" > >> > >> Recursive claims are supported, however internally in the mmc core we > >> have moved towards of removing all occurrences of them (to make the > >> locking more slim). > >> > >> Therefore, I wouldn't mind keeping the doc as is, even if isn't a > >> problem in practice to have nested claim/release of the sdio host. > > > > Thanks for the explanation and that's good to get some clarity that > recursive claims are supported. > > > > Thinking about the wording of the documentation more, 'must not' really > means to me that one is never allowed to perform the recursive claim. My > understanding comes from typical usage of 'MUST NOT' in RFCs (see RFC > 2119). Would you be open to using 'should not' to indicate doing a recursive > claim is not recommended as a best practice, but is supported in some > circumstances? > > Apologize for the delay! > > Yeah, I am fine changing the wording to "should not".... Great, I'll send a V2 patch to the list! > > > > > I'm not intending to be pedantic, this wording really did cause a back-and- > forth discussion between developers as to 1) If we correctly understood the > SDIO API implementation and 2) Whether the driver is wrong/broken. > > [...] > > Kind regards > Uffe Joel ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��i��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
