On 17 April 2011 17:46, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:07:04PM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
> [...]
>> +static int mmc_test_rw_multiple(struct mmc_test_card *test,
>> + struct mmc_test_multiple_rw *tdata,
>> + unsigned int reqsize,
On 17 April 2011 09:09, Lin Tony-B19295 wrote:
> Hi Per
>
> Just have a glance of your patch, good thinking. But I have a question
> about this patch. You modified mmc_test to test your driver. Does it mean
> your driver's performance enhancement depends on application?
I added those test
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 09:07:04PM +0200, Per Forlin wrote:
[...]
> +static int mmc_test_rw_multiple(struct mmc_test_card *test,
> + struct mmc_test_multiple_rw *tdata,
> + unsigned int reqsize, unsigned int size)
> +{
> + unsigned int dev
Hi Per
Just have a glance of your patch, good thinking. But I have a question
about this patch. You modified mmc_test to test your driver. Does it mean your
driver's performance enhancement depends on application? The caller must have
to know the next request so that could make driver p
