| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
This is a respin with a wider audience (all that get_maintainer returned)
and I know this spams a *lot* of people. Not sure what would be the correct
way, so my apologies for ruining your inbox.
The 00-INDEX files are supposed to give a summary of all files present
in a directory, but these files are horribly out of date and their
usefulness is brought into question. Often a simple "ls" would reveal
the same information as the filenames are generally quite descriptive as
a short introduction to what the file covers (it should not surprise
anyone what Documentation/sched/sched-design-CFS.txt covers)
A few years back it was mentioned that these files were no longer really
needed, and they have since then grown further out of date, so perhaps
it is time to just throw them out.
A short status yields the following _outdated_ 00-INDEX files, first
counter is files listed in 00-INDEX but missing in the directory, last
is files present but not listed in 00-INDEX.
List of outdated 00-INDEX:
Documentation: (4/10)
Documentation/sysctl: (0/1)
Documentation/timers: (1/0)
Documentation/blockdev: (3/1)
Documentation/w1/slaves: (0/1)
Documentation/locking: (0/1)
Documentation/devicetree: (0/5)
Documentation/power: (1/1)
Documentation/powerpc: (0/5)
Documentation/arm: (1/0)
Documentation/x86: (0/9)
Documentation/x86/x86_64: (1/1)
Documentation/scsi: (4/4)
Documentation/filesystems: (2/9)
Documentation/filesystems/nfs: (0/2)
Documentation/cgroup-v1: (0/2)
Documentation/kbuild: (0/4)
Documentation/spi: (1/0)
Documentation/virtual/kvm: (1/0)
Documentation/scheduler: (0/2)
Documentation/fb: (0/1)
Documentation/block: (0/1)
Documentation/networking: (6/37)
Documentation/vm: (1/3)
Then there are 364 subdirectories in Documentation/ with several files that
are missing 00-INDEX alltogether (and another 120 with a single file and no
00-INDEX).
I don't really have an opinion to whether or not we /should/ have 00-INDEX,
but the above 00-INDEX should either be removed or be kept up to date. If
we should keep the files, I can try to keep them updated, but I rather not
if we just want to delete them anyway.
As a starting point, remove all index-files and references to 00-INDEX and
see where the discussion is going.
Signed-off-by: Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us>
Acked-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Just-do-it-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: [Almost everybody else]
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
|
|
This patch introduces one mmc test tools called mmc-utils, which is convenient
if someone wants to exercise and test MMC/SD devices from userspace.
Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
|
|
Documentation about the background and the design of mmc non-blocking.
Host driver guidelines to minimize request preparation overhead.
Signed-off-by: Per Forlin <per.forlin@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Signed-off-by: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
|
|
Allows device MMC boot partitions to be accessed. MMC partitions are
treated effectively as separate block devices on the same MMC card.
Signed-off-by: Andrei Warkentin <andreiw@motorola.com>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>
|
|
SD/MMC cards tend to support an erase operation. In addition, eMMC v4.4
cards can support secure erase, trim and secure trim operations that are
all variants of the basic erase command.
SD/MMC device attributes "erase_size" and "preferred_erase_size" have been
added.
"erase_size" is the minimum size, in bytes, of an erase operation. For
MMC, "erase_size" is the erase group size reported by the card. Note that
"erase_size" does not apply to trim or secure trim operations where the
minimum size is always one 512 byte sector. For SD, "erase_size" is 512
if the card is block-addressed, 0 otherwise.
SD/MMC cards can erase an arbitrarily large area up to and
including the whole card. When erasing a large area it may
be desirable to do it in smaller chunks for three reasons:
1. A single erase command will make all other I/O on the card
wait. This is not a problem if the whole card is being erased, but
erasing one partition will make I/O for another partition on the
same card wait for the duration of the erase - which could be a
several minutes.
2. To be able to inform the user of erase progress.
3. The erase timeout becomes too large to be very useful.
Because the erase timeout contains a margin which is multiplied by
the size of the erase area, the value can end up being several
minutes for large areas.
"erase_size" is not the most efficient unit to erase (especially for SD
where it is just one sector), hence "preferred_erase_size" provides a good
chunk size for erasing large areas.
For MMC, "preferred_erase_size" is the high-capacity erase size if a card
specifies one, otherwise it is based on the capacity of the card.
For SD, "preferred_erase_size" is the allocation unit size specified by
the card.
"preferred_erase_size" is in bytes.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@nokia.com>
Acked-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org>
Cc: Madhusudhan Chikkature <madhu.cr@ti.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Ben Gardiner <bengardiner@nanometrics.ca>
Cc: <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
