[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49344092.9050908@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:52:50 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ieee1394: sbp2: fix race condition in state change
I wrote:
> An intermediate transition from _RUNNING to _IN_SHUTDOWN could have been
> missed by the former code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
> ---
> drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c | 9 +++++----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c
> +++ linux/drivers/ieee1394/sbp2.c
> @@ -895,12 +895,13 @@ static void sbp2_host_reset(struct hpsb_
> return;
>
> read_lock_irqsave(&sbp2_hi_logical_units_lock, flags);
> +
> list_for_each_entry(lu, &hi->logical_units, lu_list)
> - if (likely(atomic_read(&lu->state) !=
> - SBP2LU_STATE_IN_SHUTDOWN)) {
> - atomic_set(&lu->state, SBP2LU_STATE_IN_RESET);
> + if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lu->state,
> + SBP2LU_STATE_RUNNING, SBP2LU_STATE_IN_RESET)
> + == SBP2LU_STATE_RUNNING)
> scsi_block_requests(lu->shost);
> - }
> +
> read_unlock_irqrestore(&sbp2_hi_logical_units_lock, flags);
> }
>
Still not entirely correct. Maybe
scsi_block_requests(lu->shost);
if (atomic_cmpxchg(&lu->state,
SBP2LU_STATE_RUNNING,
SBP2LU_STATE_IN_RESET)
== SBP2LU_IN_SHUTDOWN)
scsi_unblock_requests(lu->shost);
Does What I Mean. Or I should just put a lock around all lu->state and
shost->host_self_blocked manipulations.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- ==-- ----=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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