[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200909011804.10934.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 18:04:10 -0700
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dg@...ix.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.31-rc7] gpiolib: allow poll() on value
On Tuesday 01 September 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > +static struct idr pdesc_idr;
>
> There's no locking to protect this tree. If that isn't a bug then I'd
> suggest that a comment be added here explaining why.
Covered by mutex_lock(&sysfs_lock) calls per a quick re-read...
> > +static irqreturn_t gpio_sysfs_irq(int irq, void *priv)
> > +{
> > + struct work_struct *work = priv;
> > +
> > + schedule_work(work);
> > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
>
> The only place where we explicitly cancel the pending work is in
> gpio_setup_irq(). Is that sufficient? Is there any way in which the
> work callback can occur after things have been
> freed/closed/deinitialised/etc?
Not that I noticed; it's not supposed to be possible to
free/etc with IRQs active.
- Dave
--
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