[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <574411B5.2010407@gmx.at>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:32:53 +0200
From: Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@....at>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@...zinger.com>,
Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com>,
Olivier Sobrie <olivier@...rie.be>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - fix: scheduling while atomic
On 2016-05-20 18:59, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Manfred,
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:16:49PM +0200, Manfred Schlaegl wrote:
>> @@ -133,6 +149,8 @@ static int pwm_beeper_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> struct pwm_beeper *beeper = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>
>> + cancel_work_sync(&beeper->work);
>> +
>> input_unregister_device(beeper->input);
>
> This is racy, request to play may come in after cancel_work_sync()
> returns but before we unregistered input device. I think you want the
> version below.
>
Hi Dmitry,
yes you are right. Thank you for your feedback.
I also see that point, but I think it would be a simpler change just
to cancel the worker after unregistering the device (to reorder
cancel_work_sync and input_unregister_device).
Patch will follow shortly.
What do you think?
Sincerely,
Manfred
Powered by blists - more mailing lists