On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Pierre Ossman wrote:

quoted text
> > What do you think of the patch attached to comment #40 in the Bugzilla 
> > entry?
> > 
> 
> Looks ok. As long as those two synchronization points are guaranteed,
> then I'm happy.

Maybe a better approach would be to leave the workqueue unfreezable,
and keep cancel_delayed_work_sync() in mmc_suspend_host().  It would
then be necessary to add a test to verify, if there is a card attached,
that the card is indeed suspended.  After all, it's possible that the
cancel_delayed_work_sync() ended up waiting for a job already running
on the workqueue to register a new card!  (The same would be true even 
with flush_scheduled_work.)

Also, as a bit of defensive programming, it might be a good idea to add
a "suspended" flag to the mmc_host structure.  If mmc_rescan() sees
that the flag is set then it should return immediately.  This would
protect against host drivers that aren't careful to disable detect
IRQs before calling mmc_suspend_host().

Alan Stern

--
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/