From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Subhash Jadavani Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mmc: block: replace __blk_end_request() with blk_end_request() Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:16:09 +0530 Message-ID: <4FD08671.9040402@codeaurora.org> References: <1339064218-31925-1-git-send-email-subhashj@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:33528 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759830Ab2FGKqN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:46:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Namjae Jeon Cc: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 6/7/2012 4:05 PM, Namjae Jeon wrote: > This change is not meant for improving MMC throughput; it's basically > > about becoming fair to other threads/interrupts in the system. By holding > > spin lock and interrupts disabled for longer duration, we won't allow > > other threads/interrupts to run at all. As i have mentioned in commit text, This change is not meant for improving MMC throughput; it's basically about becoming fair to other threads/interrupts in the system. By holding spin lock and interrupts disabled for longer duration, we won't allow other threads/interrupts to run at all. Regards, Subhash