[PATCH] mmc: failure of block read wait for long time

[Ghorai, Sukumar]

Chris and Adrian,

[..snip..]
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Ball [mailto:cjb at laptop.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 6:13 PM
> > To: Ghorai, Sukumar
> > Cc: Adrian Hunter; linux-mmc at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> > kernel at lists.infradead.org; Russell King - ARM Linux
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: failure of block read wait for long time
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:02:08AM +0530, Ghorai, Sukumar wrote:
> > > Would you please review and merge this patch [1] (attached too)?
> > > [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/2714
> >
> > I've been following the thread.  I believe Adrian has NACKed this patch,
> > by saying "It is absolutely unacceptable to return I/O errors to the
> > upper layers for segments that do not have errors."
> 
> [Ghorai]
> I think Russell also mentioned his opinion. Would you please add your idea
> too?
> 
> 1. I would prefer Adrian to explain again what this statement means, in
> the context - data read fail and how we make it success?
> 
> 2. if data read fail for sector(x) why we have to try for
> sector(x+1, ..x+n)?
> 
> 3. how to inform reader function which sector having the valid data out of
> (1...n) sectors.
> 
> 4. do we have any driver/code in Linux or any other os, which give inter-
> leave data and return as success?
> 
[Ghorai] please reply with your input on my/ Russell's suggestion?

> >
> > I think it's possible to merge patches to improve the situation (such
> > as the idea of noticing a card disappearing earlier), but your initial
> > patch is not the patch to do that.  You should continue to work with
> > Adrian -- when he's happy that a patch does not break the semantics
> > above, we can consider merging it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Chris Ball   <cjb at laptop.org>   <http://printf.net/>
> > One Laptop Per Child