[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081021152142.9a535e0e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:21:42 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pavel@...e.cz, burman.yan@...il.com,
pau@...ack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LIS3LV02Dx Accelerometer driver (take 4)
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:13:42 +0200
Eric Piel <eric.piel@...mplin-utc.net> wrote:
> Andrew Morton schreef:
> >> +static void lis3lv02d_poweroff_timeout(unsigned long data)
> >> +{
> >> + struct acpi_lis3lv02d *dev = (void *)data;
> >> +
> >> + up(&dev->poff_sem);
> >> + lis3lv02d_poweroff(dev->device->handle);
> >> + down(&dev->poff_sem);
> >
> > eek, no, we cannot down a semaphore from a timer handler! It will lead
> > to might_sleep() warnings, scheduling-in-atomic warnings and kernel
> > deadlocks.
> Ooh... What happened is that I wrote the other functions first. They
> indirectly use acpi_evaluate_integer(), which can sleep. So I avoided
> spin_locks, and decided to use a semaphore. But now there is a semaphore
> in a timer (which is not allowed to sleep).
>
> It seems the semaphore usage is compulsory due to acpi, so I'm planning
> to change the timer into a scheduled work on a workqueue (with
> queue_delayed_work(), and cancel_delayed_work_sync()). This workqueue
> could be the same as the one for the joystick input. Does that look the
> right way to do it?
yep, that's generally a safe transformation.
You might also be able to use keventd, via scheule_delayed_work().
--
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