[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51100930.6080405@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:17:04 +0100
From: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@....de>,
Bernie Thompson <bernie@...gable.com>,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v2] fb: udlfb: fix hang at disconnect
Am 04.02.2013 13:05, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 04.02.2013 02:14, schrieb Greg KH:
>
>> So you are right in that your driver will wait for forever for a
>> disconnect() to happen, as it will never be called. I don't understand
>> the problem that this is causing when it happens. What's wrong with
>> udlfb that having the cpu suddently reset as the powerdown happened
>> without it knowing about it?
>
> There is nothing wrong with that. I've just explained why a problem
> doesn't occur on shutdown but on disconnect (of the device).
Maybe my explanation before was just to long and I try to explain it a
bit shorter:
If a device gets disconnected, the disconnect in udlfb might wait
forever in down_interruptible() (because it waits for an urb it never
receives). This even prevents a shutdown afterwards, because that
down_interruptible() never receives a signal (at shutdown, because
kernel threads don't get such).
So the change from down_timeout() to down_interruptible() in
dlfb_free_urb_list() with commit
33077b8d3042e01da61924973e372abe589ba297 only results in that the
following code (thus the break there) will never be reached if an urb
got missed (because of a disconnect).
And the accompanying comment (... at shutdown) is misleading, because on
shutdown, the kernel thread which calls dlfb_free_urb_list() never gets
a signal, so the interruption just never happens.
As I've experienced the "missing urb on disconnect" problem quiet often,
I've changed that down_interruptible() to down_timeout() (in v1 and in
v2 to down_timeout_interruptible, because I wasn't aware that no signal
arrives on shutdown).
Hmm, ok, that explanation isn't much shorter. ;)
Regards,
Alexander
--
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