[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1104071050270.2147-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 11:01:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: "Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@....com>
cc: "Xu, Andiry" <Andiry.Xu@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...nel.org" <stable@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB host: Fix lockdep warning in AMD PLL quirk
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
> So we could access the data structure without any locks if we want using
> atomic_t for the probe_count and isoc_reqs members. But as I've seen
> meanwhile the lock still needs to protect the access to the hardware in
> the usb_amd_quirk_pll() function.
> So its probably not worth the work, what do you think?
You might as well use the spinlock.
However, is there a good reason to zero out the amd_chipset members in
usb_amd_dev_put()? Can these things be added and removed dynamically?
If they can't then the data should remain valid indefinitely once it
has been probed, and you could call pci_dev_put() at the end of
usb_amd_find_chipset_info().
And if they can, is it valid to call pci_dev_put() in usb_amd_dev_put()
while holding a spinlock? You might want to move those calls to the
end of the function.
Alan Stern
--
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