From 176f00ffed3ef94a198326fbf6a5db64f1cf73ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pierre Ossman Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 02:15:41 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] mmc: properly use the new multi block-write error handling Use the new multi block-write error reporting flag and properly tell the block layer how much data was transferred before the error. Signed-off-by: Pierre Ossman Cc: Russell King Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- drivers/mmc/mmc_block.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/mmc/mmc_block.c b/drivers/mmc/mmc_block.c index db0e8ad439a..c1293f1bda8 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/mmc_block.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/mmc_block.c @@ -158,13 +158,13 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req) { struct mmc_blk_data *md = mq->data; struct mmc_card *card = md->queue.card; + struct mmc_blk_request brq; int ret; if (mmc_card_claim_host(card)) goto cmd_err; do { - struct mmc_blk_request brq; struct mmc_command cmd; u32 readcmd, writecmd; @@ -278,17 +278,27 @@ static int mmc_blk_issue_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req) cmd_err: mmc_card_release_host(card); + ret = 1; + /* - * This is a little draconian, but until we get proper - * error handling sorted out here, its the best we can - * do - especially as some hosts have no idea how much - * data was transferred before the error occurred. + * For writes and where the host claims to support proper + * error reporting, we first ok the successful blocks. + * + * For reads we just fail the entire chunk as that should + * be safe in all cases. */ + if (rq_data_dir(req) != READ && + (card->host->caps & MMC_CAP_MULTIWRITE)) { + spin_lock_irq(&md->lock); + ret = end_that_request_chunk(req, 1, brq.data.bytes_xfered); + spin_unlock_irq(&md->lock); + } + spin_lock_irq(&md->lock); - do { + while (ret) { ret = end_that_request_chunk(req, 0, req->current_nr_sectors << 9); - } while (ret); + } add_disk_randomness(req->rq_disk); blkdev_dequeue_request(req); -- 2.41.1