lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectAw: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 17/17] net: qualcomm: add QCA7000 UART driver
Date
Hi,

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. Mai 2017 um 11:06 Uhr
> Von: "Stefan Wahren" <stefan.wahren@i2se.com>
> An: "Lino Sanfilippo" <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de>, "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>, "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> Cc: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, "Jiri Slaby" <jslaby@suse.com>, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Jakub Kicinski" <kubakici@wp.pl>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
> Betreff: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 17/17] net: qualcomm: add QCA7000 UART driver
>
> Am 23.05.2017 um 23:01 schrieb Lino Sanfilippo:
> > On 23.05.2017 21:38, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> >>> Lino Sanfilippo <LinoSanfilippo@gmx.de> hat am 23. Mai 2017 um 20:16 geschrieben:
> >>>
> >>> I suggest to avoid this possible race by first unregistering the netdevice and then
> >>> calling cancel_work_sync().
> >> What makes you sure that's safe to unregister the netdev while the tx work queue is possibly active?
> > unregister_netdevice() calls netdev_close() if the interface is still up. netdev_close() calls flush_work()
> > so the unregistration is delayed until the tx work function is finished. Furthermore both close() and
> > tx work are synchronized by means of the qca->lock which also guarantees that unregister_netdevice() wont
> > be finished until the tx work is done.
> >
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I suspect there could be the same race
> between serdev_device_close() and the tx work queue.
>
> So i would propose a variant of your original suggestion:
>
> unregister_netdev(qca->net_dev);
>
> /* Flush any pending characters in the driver. */
> serdev_device_close(serdev);
> cancel_work_sync(&qca->tx_work);
>
> Since we have the same pattern in the error path of the probe function,
> the same applies there.

Agreed, it is much cleaner to have the same cleanup pattern in remove() as
we have in (error case of) probe().

Regards,
Lino

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-24 16:22    [W:0.084 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site