[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVOGyagTv2Na_t1oX+hxUMk9mSXRbog73_cZrtc26926UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 13:00:03 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.2-rc1
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>> Also, it looks like you need to hold the "fw_lock" to even look at
>>> that pointer, since the buffer can get reallocated etc.
>>
>> Yes, the above code with holding 'fw_lock' is right fix for the issue since
>> sysfs read can happen anytime, and there is one race between firmware
>> request abort and reading uevent of sysfs.
>
> So if fw_priv->buf is NULL, what should we do?
>
> Should we skip the TIMEOUT= and ASYNC= fields too?
When the request is aborted, the firmware device will be removed,
so it is OK to skip the two fields.
>
> Something like the attached, perhaps?
Looks it is fine.
>
> Shuah, how reproducible is this? Does this (completely untested) patch
> make any difference?
>
> Linus
--
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