lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/16] scsi: atari_scsi: fix sleep_on race
Date
On Thursday 27 February 2014, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> Nack - the completion condition in the first hunk has its logic
> reversed. Try this instead (while() loops while condition true, do {}
> until () loops while condition false, no?)

Sorry about messing it up again. I though I had fixed it up the
way you commented when you said it worked.

> I'm 99% confident I had tested your current version of the patch before
> and found it still attempts to schedule while in interrupt. I can retest
> if you prefer, but that'll have to wait a few days.

I definitely trust you to have the right version, since you did the
testing.

> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/atari_scsi.c b/drivers/scsi/atari_scsi.c
> index a3e6c8a..cc1b013 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/atari_scsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/atari_scsi.c
> @@ -90,6 +90,7 @@
> #include <linux/init.h>
> #include <linux/nvram.h>
> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/wait.h>
>
> #include <asm/setup.h>
> #include <asm/atarihw.h>
> @@ -549,8 +550,10 @@ static void falcon_get_lock(void)
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
>
> - while (!in_irq() && falcon_got_lock && stdma_others_waiting())
> - sleep_on(&falcon_fairness_wait);
> + wait_event_cmd(falcon_fairness_wait,
> + in_irq() || !falcon_got_lock || !stdma_others_waiting(),
> + local_irq_restore(flags),
> + local_irq_save(flags));
>
> while (!falcon_got_lock) {
> if (in_irq())

Yes, by inspection your version looks correct and mine looks wrong.
I had figured this out before, just sent the wrong version.

> @@ -562,7 +565,10 @@ static void falcon_get_lock(void)
> falcon_trying_lock = 0;
> wake_up(&falcon_try_wait);
> } else {
> - sleep_on(&falcon_try_wait);
> + wait_event_cmd(falcon_try_wait,
> + falcon_got_lock && !falcon_trying_lock,
> + local_irq_restore(flags),
> + local_irq_save(flags));
> }

I did correct this part compared to my first patch, but forgot
to change the other hunk.

Can you send your version of the patch to Geert for inclusion?
That way I don't have the danger of missing another negation.
This code is clearly too weird to rely on inspection alone and
we know that your version was working when you last tested it.

Arnd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-27 22:21    [W:0.067 / U:0.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site