From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Ball Subject: Re: [comments] MMC: Reliable write support. Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:58:07 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1301001751-30785-1-git-send-email-andreiw@motorola.com> <201103290901.31680.arnd@arndb.de> <201103301405.21047.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from void.printf.net ([89.145.121.20]:38670 "EHLO void.printf.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751950Ab1CaUwR (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:52:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Andrei Warkentin's message of "Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:39:39 -0500") Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: Andrei Warkentin Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thu, Mar 31 2011, Andrei Warkentin wrote: > I took a look at mmc_test. It seems like it was meant more to test > cards, rather than block.c functionality, as it issues all MMC > requests by itself, instead of submitting via block layer. It would be > separately an interesting an idea to implement an MMC reliable write > test to mmc_test, but it wouldn't help much with bugs in block.c. > What do you think? Ah, that's right. I guess this is just calling for a userspace test suite, and there's nothing more to be done in the kernel.. - Chris. -- Chris Ball One Laptop Per Child