[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ABB8CB5.9080402@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:43:57 +0530
From: Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Frederik Deweerdt <frederik.deweerdt@...og.eu>, greg@...ah.org,
Lars Ericsson <Lars_Ericsson@...ia.com>,
David.Woodhouse@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"'Ivo van Doorn'" <ivdoorn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch -stable] firware_class oops: fix firmware_loading_store
locking
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't think this is correct.
>
> I think you should protect the FW_STATUS_LOADING bit too, shouldn't you?
>
> As it is, it does this:
>
> if (test_bit(FW_STATUS_LOADING, &fw_priv->status)) {
> mutex_lock(&fw_lock);
> ...
> clear_bit(FW_STATUS_LOADING, &fw_priv->status);
> mutex_unlock(&fw_lock);
> break;
> }
>
> and if this code can race (which it obviously can, since your addition of
> fw_lock mutex matters), then I think it can race on that FW_STATUS_LOADING
> bit too. No?
>
> So my gut feel is that the whole damn function should be protected by the
> mutex_lock thing. IOW, the patch would be something like the appended.
>
> UNTESTED. Somebody needs to test this, verify, and send it back to me.
>
I did a quick boot test with this patch and didn't find any issues.
But that said i haven't been able to recreate the problem reported by Lars,
so not sure how relevant would be the test results from me.
Thanks
-Sachin
--
---------------------------------
Sachin Sant
IBM Linux Technology Center
India Systems and Technology Labs
Bangalore, India
---------------------------------
--
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