Re: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: improve rw performance

[Ulf Hansson]

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 13:09, Ricky WU <ricky_wu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 10:33 PM
> > To: Ricky WU <ricky_wu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tommyhebb@xxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: rtsx: improve rw performance
> >
> > On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 at 11:43, Ricky WU <ricky_wu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > sd_check_seq() to distinguish sequential rw or normal rw if this data
> > > is sequential call to sd_rw_sequential()
> >
> > Can you please extend this commit message? This doesn't answer why or what
> > this change really does, please try to do that, as to help me to review this.
> >
>
> This patch is for improving sequential read/write performance.

I would not use the term "sequential", but rather "multi-block read/writes".

> Before this, whether CMD is muti-RW or single-RW the driver do the same flow.
> This patch distinguishes the two and do different flow to get more performance
> on sequential RW.

Alright, thanks for clarifying.

So to be clear, please update the commit message to say that it's
improving performance for multi-block read/write. Then please add also
some information about how that is achieved.

Moreover, please rename the functions in the code according to this as
well, as to make it more clear. For example, use sd_rw_multi() (and
sd_rw_single() if that is needed), rather than sd_rw_sequential().

> sd_check_seq() to distinguish sequential RW (CMD 18/25) or normal RW (CMD 17/24)
> if the data is sequential call to sd_rw_sequential()

I will wait for a v2 from you, then I will give it another try to review.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe