Pierre Ossman wrote:
quoted text
> The host->removed member is only used for this simple test. It is set in
> mmc_host_remove() to indicate that the removal process has begun. At
> this point it is invalid to call mmc_detect_change() (the place this
> patch fixes). So the spinlocks are mostly there so that things are
> properly ordered when we go SMP. Some creative barriers would probably
> work as well, but I find spinlocks more "normal" and hence more readable.

Sounds to me like either struct xyz_host { atomic_t removed; } would do
the job, or that actually wider regions of mmc_host_remove() and
mmc_detect_change() need to be serialized.
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -=--=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/