[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1178260913.25425.27.camel@violet>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 08:41:53 +0200
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bluez-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: postpone hci_dev unregistration
Hi Jiri,
> (I sent this a week ago but it seems to have got lost in other noise,
> resending)
>
> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
>
> Bluetooth: postpone hci_dev unregistration
>
> Commit b40df57 substituted bh_lock_sock() in hci_sock_dev_event() for
> lock_sock() when unregistering HCI device, in order to prevent deadlock
> against locking in l2cap_connect_cfm() from softirq context.
>
> This however introduces another problem - hci_sock_dev_event() for
> HCI_DEV_UNREG can also be triggered in atomic context, in which calling
> lock_sock() is not safe as it could sleep. Reported by Jeremy Fitzhardinge
> at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/23/271
>
> This patch moves the detaching of sockets from hci_device into workqueue,
> so that lock_sock() can be used safely. This requires movement of
> deallocation of hci_dev - deallocating device just after
> hci_unregister_dev() would be too soon, as it could happen before the
> workqueue has been run.
I saw the report on LKML, but I am not really comfortable with this
approach. It feels like an ugly hack. This needs more thinking and I
think that simplifying the looking between HCI and L2CAP should be the
goal.
Regards
Marcel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists