Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:17:12 +0100 | From | Alan Jenkins <> | Subject | Re: eeepc_hotkey rmmod issues |
| |
Corentin Chary wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Alan > Jenkins<sourcejedi.lkml@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/29/09, Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Alan >>> Jenkins<sourcejedi.lkml@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/28/09, Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Alan >>>>> Jenkins<sourcejedi.lkml@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But we should still fix the underlying problem. It sounds like >>>>>> there's a narrow danger window on module unload. And it's still there >>>>>> in 2.6.31-rc4: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1019 static void eeepc_rfkill_exit(void) >>>>>> 1020 { >>>>>> 1021 eeepc_unregister_rfkill_notifier("\\_SB.PCI0.P0P6"); >>>>>> 1022 eeepc_unregister_rfkill_notifier("\\_SB.PCI0.P0P7"); >>>>>> 1023 if (ehotk->wlan_rfkill) >>>>>> 1024 rfkill_unregister(ehotk->wlan_rfkill); >>>>>> >>>>>> Really we need to perform these unregistrations "at the same time". >>>>>> The rfkill device relies on the notifier, but the notifier callback >>>>>> also uses the rfkill device. I guess we will need to a mutex to >>>>>> synchronize unregistration (and registration). >>>>>> >>>>> I think 2.6.31 is ok, >>>>> >>>>> In 2.6.30, we called eeepc_unregister_rfkill_notifier after >>>>> rfkill_free, which was an error because >>>>> the notifier callback uses the rfkill device. >>>>> >>>> Ok. I don't see how that causes Luciano's errors. So I guess he was >>>> right to blame the wireless driver. >>>> >>> If he was using 2.6.30, then : >>> eeepc_unregister_rfkill_notifier() was called after rfkill_unregister() >>> And the callback was still registered after rfkill_unregister(), *Ooops* >>> >>> In 2.6.31 we first unregister the callback, and then rfkill, so rmmod >>> should works. >>> >>> >>>>> But I believe that the rfkill device can work without the notifier >>>>> (which is an acpi notifier). >>>>> >>>> I don't think it can. >>>> >>>> If the rfkill device is set to "soft blocked", the pci device is >>>> removed. If the acpi notifier is not called, the pci driver (e.g. >>>> ath5k) won't realise the device is gone. The network device (e.g. >>>> wlan0) will remain present, but it won't work. >>>> >>> Hum, there is a misunderstanding here. What I mean is : I think >>> eeepc_rfkill_exit(void) is ok in 2.6.31 (Luciano used 2.6.30). >>> >>> And eeepc_rfkill_exit() is only called on rmmod eeepc-laptop >>> >>> Commit 7de39389d8f61aa517ce2a8b4d925acc62696ae5 did a lot of >>> change in rfkill code. >>> >>> >>>> So I believe there's a circular dependency which we need to resolve. >>>> Would you like me to write a patch for it? >>>> >>> It's possible that I miss the issue here, so go ahead :) >>> >> Thanks :) >> >> Here is a test case to show the race I am talking about >> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c >> index ec560f1..c478db5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/eeepc-laptop.c >> @@ -1020,6 +1020,17 @@ static void eeepc_rfkill_exit(void) >> { >> eeepc_unregister_rfkill_notifier("\\_SB.PCI0.P0P6"); >> eeepc_unregister_rfkill_notifier("\\_SB.PCI0.P0P7"); >> + >> + // >> + // Simulated error >> + // Imagine that userspace set the wifi to "soft blocked" at this exact moment >> + // (or the wireless toggle key was pressed) >> + // >> + // The PCI device will disappear, but we will not see any notification >> + // >> + set_acpi(CM_ASL_WLAN, 0); >> + rfkill_set_sw_state(ehotk->wlan_rfkill, true); >> + >> if (ehotk->wlan_rfkill) >> rfkill_unregister(ehotk->wlan_rfkill); >> if (ehotk->bluetooth_rfkill) >> >> >> >> If you unload eeepc-laptop with this simulated race, the wireless >> interface stays around but stops working. >> >> [ 191.391155] ath5k phy0: can't reset hardware (-5) >> [ 191.432983] ath5k phy0: failed to wakeup the MAC Chip >> [ 196.940835] __ratelimit: 21 callbacks suppressed >> >> Alan >> >> > > Indeed :) . Let's serialize that. Do you want me to do it ? > Thanks, >
It's ok, I'm already working on a fix.
| |