[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231122080132.GA1526356@google.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:01:32 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] media: uvcvideo: Do not halt the device after
disconnect
On (23/11/22 16:47), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Can the following happen?
Consider the following case (when CPU1 experienced a delay, a preemption
or anything):
> CPU0 CPU1
> uvc_disconnect()
> uvc_video_stop_streaming()
> usb_set_intfdata()
> uvc_unregister_video()
>
> if (!smp_load(&dev->disconnected))
>
> smp_store_release(&dev->disconnected, true);
>
> kref_put(&dev->ref, uvc_delete);
> uvc_video_halt()
That uvc_video_halt() cannot be legal, right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists