Subject: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: Do not release spinlock in request_end

From: [email-masked] (Ulf Hansson)
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:51:44 +0200

Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 09:37:51AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 15:29 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:06:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>> The patch "mmc: core: move ->request() call from atomic context",
>>>>> is the reason to why this change is possible. This simplifies the
>>>>> error handling code execution path quite a lot and potentially also
>>>>> fixes some error handling hang problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <[email-masked]>
>>>> This doesn't look right:
>>>>
>>>> void mmc_request_done(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_request *mrq)
>>>> {
>>>>         if (err && cmd->retries) {
>>>>                 host->ops->request(host, mrq);
>>>>
>> This is NOT how it looks at mmc-next. You need to test with Adrian  
>> Hunters patch which the commit refers two.
> 
> In that case, how can I take the patch to mmci if it depends on something
> in another tree?
> 

I don't know. But how do you update your tree from next normally? I 
believe the problem is more related to that the mmc-next tree is now on 
a temporary git. If you do not update your tree how shall we be able to 
continue with integration of new patches that depends on mmc patches 
from "next"?

BR
Uffe