[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51E3EC8B.3090601@metafoo.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:35:23 +0200
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To: Oleksandr Kravchenko <o.v.kravchenko@...ballogic.com>
CC: Oleksandr Kravchenko <x0199363@...com>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
grant.likely@...aro.org, rob.herring@...xeda.com, rob@...dley.net,
jic23@....ac.uk, pmeerw@...erw.net, holler@...oftware.de,
srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com, devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: add APDS9300 ambilent light sensor driver
On 07/15/2013 02:27 PM, Oleksandr Kravchenko wrote:
> Thank you for review! But I don't completely understand one of your comment:
>
>>> +static int als_probe(struct i2c_client *client, const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> [...]
>>> + if (client->irq) {
>>> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq,
>>> + NULL, als_interrupt_handler,
>>> + IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>> + ALS_IRQ_NAME, indio_dev);
>>
>> This is a bit racy, you access memory in the irq handler that is freed
>> before the irq is freed.
>
> Do you mean than that indio_dev may be used in interrupt handler after
> iio_device_free(indio_dev) called in als_remove() function?
>
> If so, can I use disable_irq() in als_remove() before iio_device_free()
> to avoid this problem?
>
Just add a devm_iio_device_alloc() and use that, instead of trying to bodch
around the issue.
--
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