[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151127050026.GX22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 05:00:26 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@....samsung.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: ->poll() instances shouldn't be indefinitely blocking
Take a look at this:
static unsigned int gsc_m2m_poll(struct file *file,
struct poll_table_struct *wait)
{
struct gsc_ctx *ctx = fh_to_ctx(file->private_data);
struct gsc_dev *gsc = ctx->gsc_dev;
int ret;
if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&gsc->lock))
return -ERESTARTSYS;
ret = v4l2_m2m_poll(file, ctx->m2m_ctx, wait);
mutex_unlock(&gsc->lock);
return ret;
}
a) ->poll() should not return -E...; callers expect just a bitmap of
POLL... values.
b) sure, it's nice that if this thing hangs, we'll be able to kill it.
However, if one's ->poll() can hang indefinitely, it means bad things
for poll(2), select(2), etc. semantics. What the hell had been intended
there?
c) a bunch of v4l2_m2m_poll() callers are also taking some kind of
mutex; AFAICS, all of those appear bogus (the rest of them do not
play wiht ERESTARTSYS, just plain mutex_lock() for those).
What's going on there?
--
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