[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yw3gaLk24rPvRsAn@linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:03:20 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Thinh Nguyen <Thinh.Nguyen@...opsys.com>
Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Bogdanov <d.bogdanov@...ro.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"target-devel@...r.kernel.org" <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/25] usb: gadget: f_tcm: Execute command on write
completion
On 2022-08-29 21:47:41 [+0000], Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> Ok. Maybe we should make a change in the target_execute_cmd() then. It
> seems unreasonable to force the caller to workaround this such as the
> wait+complete construct you did (and I don't recall we have changes in
> place to know/guarantee that interrupts are enabled before executing
> target_execute_cmd() previously either).
Sounds reasonable. Back then I wasn't sure if I'm putting all the puzzle
pieces correctly together so I preferred this over a target change I
wasn't sure was really needed. Anyway.
> For the dwc3, we masked the interrupt at this point, so interrupt won't
> be asserted here.
dwc3 has a irqrestore() after calling the routine so that will avoid the
splat. But lockdep should yell here.
Anyway, other interrupts on that CPU (timer for instance) could trigger.
> Thanks,
> Thinh
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists