From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb/mos7720: process deferred urbs in a workqueue
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 16:13:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201105001307.lelve65nif344cfs@linux-p48b.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201104162534.GY4085@localhost>
On Wed, 04 Nov 2020, Johan Hovold wrote:
>Hmm. I took at closer look at the parport code and it seems the current
>implementation is already racy but that removing the tasklet is going to
>widen that that window.
>
>Those register writes in restore() should be submitted before any
>later requests. Perhaps setting a flag and flushing the work in
>parport_prologue() could work?
Ah, I see and agree. Considering work is only deferred from restore_state()
I don't even think we need a flag, no? We can let parport_prologue()
just flush_work() unconditionally (right before taking the disc_mutex)
which for the most part will be idle anyway. The flush_work() also becomes
saner now that we'll stop rescheduling work in send_deferred_urbs().
Also, but not strictly related to this. What do you think of deferring all
work in write_parport_reg_nonblock() unconditionally? I'd like to avoid
that mutex_trylock() because eventually I'll be re-adding a warn in the
locking code, but that would also simplify the code done here in the
nonblocking irq write. I'm not at all familiar with parport, but I would
think that restore_state context would not care.
>On the other hand, the restore() implementation looks broken in that it
>doesn't actually restore the provided state. I'll go fix that up.
How did this thing ever work?
Thanks,
Davidlohr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-05 0:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-02 21:14 Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-03 20:40 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-04 11:06 ` Johan Hovold
2020-11-04 16:25 ` Johan Hovold
2020-11-05 0:13 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2020-11-05 8:25 ` Johan Hovold
2020-11-06 6:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-09 9:22 ` Oliver Neukum
2020-11-09 19:14 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-13 9:14 ` Johan Hovold
2020-11-14 4:27 ` [PATCH] USB: serial: mos7720: defer state restore to " Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-16 17:09 ` Johan Hovold
2020-11-16 22:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-17 16:28 ` Johan Hovold
2020-11-17 16:48 ` [PATCH v2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-18 10:11 ` Johan Hovold
2020-11-20 4:53 ` [PATCH v3] " Davidlohr Bueso
2020-11-20 9:37 ` Johan Hovold
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201105001307.lelve65nif344cfs@linux-p48b.lan \
--to=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®