[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAo+4rV1gFhCpS0=bQa-nBmDLrQ2tensXii5GDfEkTb=9SvbhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 00:18:00 +0800
From: Chengfeng Ye <dg573847474@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, wim@...ux-watchdog.org,
linux@...ck-us.net, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: s3c2410: Fix potential deadlock on &wdt->lock
Please kindly note that I am resending the last email since it did not
reach maillist.
> Hi, Krzysztof
> Thanks for the reply.
> > This interrupt is a threaded interrupt. Therefore the
> > s3c2410wdt_keepalive() will be called again from process thread. Are you
> > sure there is deadlock?
> Is it really that s3c2410wdt_irq is a threaded interrupt? I could be wrong but I can
> see that the interrupt is registered via the following code. It is the third argument
> of devm_request_irq but not devm_request_threaded_irq or request_threaded_irq,
> as far as I know, it should be an interrupt handler for the interrupt line wdt_irq
> executed under irq context.
> ret = devm_request_irq(dev, wdt_irq, s3c2410wdt_irq, 0, pdev->name, pdev);
> > Anyway, please also strip unrelated paths and rather use function names,
> > not references to lines, because these might be not accurate.
> No problem, I will provide a new patch with the function name soon.
> Best Regards,
> Chengfeng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists