From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [patchv3 4/4] MMC: MMC boot partitions support. Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:22:14 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1302556424-21951-4-git-send-email-andreiw@motorola.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:41426 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756199Ab1DKWRU (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:17:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Andrei Warkentin's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:10:37 -0500") Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Andrei Warkentin Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de Hi Andrei, On Mon, Apr 11 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > So it was one of the two - > a) stick mmc_bkl_part_switch into mmc_blk_issue_secdiscard_rq, > mmc_blk_issue_discard_rq, and mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq. > b) Move claim/release into mmc_blk_issue_rq and put partition switch > code into one place. > > (b) is cleaner. What do you think? Thanks, I see. (b) is definitely fine -- I'm suggesting one patch to push claim/release up into mmc_blk_issue_rq() (which should have no other side-effects), and then a second patch to add partitioning support and also insert the single mmc_blk_part_switch() into the right place. Does that make sense? - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child