From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: add module parameter to set whether cards are assumed removable Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:32:16 +0000 Message-ID: <1258893136.3627.10.camel@localhost> References: <1257914676.2237.57.camel@localhost> <20091116122329.847916b6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1258410709.2792.9.camel@localhost> <20091122114234.GA28590@one.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-umgxClBDn8WH5ulkxk0h" Return-path: Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk ([88.96.1.126]:42993 "EHLO shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946AbZKVMcR (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:32:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091122114234.GA28590@one.lan> Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Wouter van Heyst Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, LKML , 504391@bugs.debian.org, Pierre Ossman --=-umgxClBDn8WH5ulkxk0h Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 12:42 +0100, Wouter van Heyst wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:31:49PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: [...] > > In general, it is not possible to tell whether a card present in an MMC > > slot after resume is the same that was there before suspend. So there > > are two possible behaviours, each of which will cause data loss in some > > cases: > >=20 > > CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME=3Dn (default): Cards are assumed to be removed > > during suspend. Any filesystem on them must be unmounted before > > suspend; otherwise, buffered writes will be lost. > >=20 > > CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME=3Dy: Cards are assumed to remain present durin= g > > suspend. They must not be swapped during suspend; otherwise, buffered > > writes will be flushed to the wrong card. > >=20 > > Currently the choice is made at compile time and this allows that to be > > overridden at module load time. >=20 > I'm running 2.6.32-rc7 with this patch applied and CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESU= ME=3Dy > That works as desired for my non-removable case. Is it desired that I > test if 'removable=3D1' will thrash my filesystem? Please test with CONFIG_MMC_UNSAFE_RESUME=3Dn (which Debian will continue to use) and removable=3D0. Ben. --=20 Ben Hutchings Unix is many things to many people, but it's never been everything to anybody. --=-umgxClBDn8WH5ulkxk0h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUASwkvQ+e/yOyVhhEJAQIkjBAA1MIkomPrdHGBNgfm9DKbSZt7QQgtgMET anVwwKzmjw9MgJFMOL3L0juAewcyh07W9iMsfb9lwd37H5tczGoFrkKy/bmE+ZP5 R/nEqNogn1fPXDa5kwAbfMDOiKCDMXn0FHLEtK1SxDIPA2iEjIoq0Q2borwqx9np eqoUIhs92QF3v0Wmoes6y4WQvPGbLQ3iAQNa2Iwg3QmtRWUC6m/3n7LKqYvduaXH qW5h5vGGhSp8Da1FkuvNSE6izPA5lcNk8SWGhFYgdlGdT9GmQ4qyDaHKz0Fi89rZ HlNcfXU4l7bhFZfaAiZOEmxsJmkF35fCyis9KCoG/HEf8Bx4MobxFDZgeXQmJAei HmC7d+7YDfV9Bhw4RYJCeRxevmz+U5CLcnC4d2TCAhezgxPfBzLgQcr6ro5C3qk6 YW4rZftQWasBgWlL/OKn8W0JSRqvl2JGQ3Sm7T7nCHWcoLMQmGQJh4Xozi4kgOzS ZcdEPPzUt3FWmXN+O9/G6Y11RdGnQh2AvkazBWPEyuTqt9fEbbQgKSiTCHglUc6w YQvgQ0TAGYF02DbtGGiF2gyPnspDQUxFKFLNUvD/wKz421JMpV60yBNE25EWEPOb zWD6pcR0LmNEEyRYEhc6arJ6h+ObGyQZ6shJIRZzT4A089/bcYYSo7pvzPfXHD7N f+dI8aeQhpk= =3uUM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-umgxClBDn8WH5ulkxk0h--