* [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic
@ 2014-01-17 19:57 Andrew Bresticker
2014-01-17 22:58 ` Philip Rakity
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-17 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Ball; +Cc: linux-mmc, linux-kernel, Andrew Bresticker
sdhci_execute_tuning() takes host->lock without disabling interrupts.
Use spin_lock_irq{save,restore} instead so that we avoid taking an
interrupt and scheduling while holding host->lock.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org>
---
drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
index ec3eb30..84c80e7 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c
@@ -1857,12 +1857,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
unsigned long timeout;
int err = 0;
bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false;
+ unsigned long flags;
host = mmc_priv(mmc);
sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host);
disable_irq(host->irq);
- spin_lock(&host->lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2);
@@ -1882,14 +1883,14 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
requires_tuning_nonuhs)
ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING;
else {
- spin_unlock(&host->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
enable_irq(host->irq);
sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host);
return 0;
}
if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) {
- spin_unlock(&host->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
enable_irq(host->irq);
err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode);
sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host);
@@ -1963,7 +1964,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
host->cmd = NULL;
host->mrq = NULL;
- spin_unlock(&host->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
enable_irq(host->irq);
/* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */
@@ -1971,7 +1972,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode)
(host->tuning_done == 1),
msecs_to_jiffies(50));
disable_irq(host->irq);
- spin_lock(&host->lock);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
if (!host->tuning_done) {
pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for "
@@ -2046,7 +2047,7 @@ out:
err = 0;
sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier);
- spin_unlock(&host->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
enable_irq(host->irq);
sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host);
--
1.8.5.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic 2014-01-17 19:57 [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-17 22:58 ` Philip Rakity 2014-01-17 23:10 ` Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-17 23:11 ` John Tobias 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Philip Rakity @ 2014-01-17 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Bresticker; +Cc: Chris Ball, linux-mmc, linux-kernel On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> wrote: > sdhci_execute_tuning() takes host->lock without disabling interrupts. > Use spin_lock_irq{save,restore} instead so that we avoid taking an > interrupt and scheduling while holding host->lock. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> > --- > drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 13 +++++++------ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > index ec3eb30..84c80e7 100644 > --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c > @@ -1857,12 +1857,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > unsigned long timeout; > int err = 0; > bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false; > + unsigned long flags; > > host = mmc_priv(mmc); > > sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host); > disable_irq(host->irq); > - spin_lock(&host->lock); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); The disable_irq() call stops the controller from doing interrupts. Please explain what problem you are seeing > > ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2); > > @@ -1882,14 +1883,14 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > requires_tuning_nonuhs) > ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING; > else { > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > enable_irq(host->irq); > sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); > return 0; > } > > if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) { > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > enable_irq(host->irq); > err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode); > sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); > @@ -1963,7 +1964,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > host->cmd = NULL; > host->mrq = NULL; > > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > enable_irq(host->irq); > > /* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */ > @@ -1971,7 +1972,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) > (host->tuning_done == 1), > msecs_to_jiffies(50)); > disable_irq(host->irq); > - spin_lock(&host->lock); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); > > if (!host->tuning_done) { > pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for " > @@ -2046,7 +2047,7 @@ out: > err = 0; > > sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier); > - spin_unlock(&host->lock); > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); > enable_irq(host->irq); > sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); > > -- > 1.8.5.2 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic 2014-01-17 22:58 ` Philip Rakity @ 2014-01-17 23:10 ` Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-17 23:11 ` John Tobias 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-17 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Rakity; +Cc: Chris Ball, linux-mmc, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Philip Rakity <prakity@nvidia.com> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> wrote: > >> sdhci_execute_tuning() takes host->lock without disabling interrupts. >> Use spin_lock_irq{save,restore} instead so that we avoid taking an >> interrupt and scheduling while holding host->lock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 13 +++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> index ec3eb30..84c80e7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> @@ -1857,12 +1857,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> unsigned long timeout; >> int err = 0; >> bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false; >> + unsigned long flags; >> >> host = mmc_priv(mmc); >> >> sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host); >> disable_irq(host->irq); >> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); > > > The disable_irq() call stops the controller from doing interrupts. Right, but it does not disable other IRQ sources that could cause us to schedule. > Please explain what problem you are seeing The issue we were seeing was that a card-detect interrupt was triggered (*not* the controller interrupt), causing the card-detect irq thread to recurse on host->lock: [ 60.962218] BUG: spinlock cpu recursion on CPU#0, irq/362-700b040/89 [ 60.975253] lock: 0xee210c80, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: kworker/u8:1/33, .owner_cpu: 0 [ 60.991638] CPU: 0 PID: 89 Comm: irq/362-700b040 Not tainted 3.10.18 #2 [ 61.005199] [<800153cc>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x118) from [<800124e4>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24) [ 61.022824] [<800124e4>] (show_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<8053d584>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x28) [ 61.039389] [<8053d584>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x28) from [<8021d508>] (spin_dump+0x80/0x94) [ 61.055773] [<8021d508>] (spin_dump+0x80/0x94) from [<8021d548>] (spin_bug+0x2c/0x30) [ 61.071803] [<8021d548>] (spin_bug+0x2c/0x30) from [<8021d61c>] (do_raw_spin_lock+0x70/0x15c) [ 61.089250] [<8021d61c>] (do_raw_spin_lock+0x70/0x15c) from [<8054098c>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x28) [ 61.109175] [<8054098c>] (_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x20/0x28) from [<803e2af0>] (sdhci_card_event+0x28/0xfc) [ 61.128922] [<803e2af0>] (sdhci_card_event+0x28/0xfc) from [<803dc880>] (mmc_gpio_cd_irqt+0x30/0x4c) [ 61.147609] [<803dc880>] (mmc_gpio_cd_irqt+0x30/0x4c) from [<80091858>] (irq_thread+0xf0/0x224) [ 61.165412] [<80091858>] (irq_thread+0xf0/0x224) from [<80050db4>] (kthread+0xc8/0xd8) [ 61.181623] [<80050db4>] (kthread+0xc8/0xd8) from [<8000e4d8>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x20) Thanks, Andrew > >> >> ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2); >> >> @@ -1882,14 +1883,14 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> requires_tuning_nonuhs) >> ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING; >> else { >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> return 0; >> } >> >> if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) { >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> @@ -1963,7 +1964,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> host->cmd = NULL; >> host->mrq = NULL; >> >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> >> /* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */ >> @@ -1971,7 +1972,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> (host->tuning_done == 1), >> msecs_to_jiffies(50)); >> disable_irq(host->irq); >> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); >> >> if (!host->tuning_done) { >> pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for " >> @@ -2046,7 +2047,7 @@ out: >> err = 0; >> >> sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier); >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> >> -- >> 1.8.5.2 >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic 2014-01-17 22:58 ` Philip Rakity 2014-01-17 23:10 ` Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-17 23:11 ` John Tobias 2014-01-17 23:16 ` Andrew Bresticker 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: John Tobias @ 2014-01-17 23:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Rakity; +Cc: Andrew Bresticker, Chris Ball, linux-mmc, linux-kernel There's an existing patch for that... http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg296596.html On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Philip Rakity <prakity@nvidia.com> wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> wrote: > >> sdhci_execute_tuning() takes host->lock without disabling interrupts. >> Use spin_lock_irq{save,restore} instead so that we avoid taking an >> interrupt and scheduling while holding host->lock. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 13 +++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> index ec3eb30..84c80e7 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >> @@ -1857,12 +1857,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> unsigned long timeout; >> int err = 0; >> bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false; >> + unsigned long flags; >> >> host = mmc_priv(mmc); >> >> sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host); >> disable_irq(host->irq); >> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); > > > The disable_irq() call stops the controller from doing interrupts. > Please explain what problem you are seeing > >> >> ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2); >> >> @@ -1882,14 +1883,14 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> requires_tuning_nonuhs) >> ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING; >> else { >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> return 0; >> } >> >> if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) { >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> @@ -1963,7 +1964,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> host->cmd = NULL; >> host->mrq = NULL; >> >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> >> /* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */ >> @@ -1971,7 +1972,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >> (host->tuning_done == 1), >> msecs_to_jiffies(50)); >> disable_irq(host->irq); >> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); >> >> if (!host->tuning_done) { >> pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for " >> @@ -2046,7 +2047,7 @@ out: >> err = 0; >> >> sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier); >> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >> enable_irq(host->irq); >> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >> >> -- >> 1.8.5.2 >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic 2014-01-17 23:11 ` John Tobias @ 2014-01-17 23:16 ` Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-17 23:40 ` Chris Ball 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-17 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Tobias; +Cc: Philip Rakity, Chris Ball, linux-mmc, linux-kernel On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:11 PM, John Tobias <john.tobias.ph@gmail.com> wrote: > There's an existing patch for that... > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg296596.html Ah, I see. Looks like it has yet to be picked up... > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Philip Rakity <prakity@nvidia.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 17, 2014, at 7:57 PM, Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> sdhci_execute_tuning() takes host->lock without disabling interrupts. >>> Use spin_lock_irq{save,restore} instead so that we avoid taking an >>> interrupt and scheduling while holding host->lock. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 13 +++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> index ec3eb30..84c80e7 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c >>> @@ -1857,12 +1857,13 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >>> unsigned long timeout; >>> int err = 0; >>> bool requires_tuning_nonuhs = false; >>> + unsigned long flags; >>> >>> host = mmc_priv(mmc); >>> >>> sdhci_runtime_pm_get(host); >>> disable_irq(host->irq); >>> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); >> >> >> The disable_irq() call stops the controller from doing interrupts. >> Please explain what problem you are seeing >> >>> >>> ctrl = sdhci_readw(host, SDHCI_HOST_CONTROL2); >>> >>> @@ -1882,14 +1883,14 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >>> requires_tuning_nonuhs) >>> ctrl |= SDHCI_CTRL_EXEC_TUNING; >>> else { >>> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >>> enable_irq(host->irq); >>> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> if (host->ops->platform_execute_tuning) { >>> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >>> enable_irq(host->irq); >>> err = host->ops->platform_execute_tuning(host, opcode); >>> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >>> @@ -1963,7 +1964,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >>> host->cmd = NULL; >>> host->mrq = NULL; >>> >>> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >>> enable_irq(host->irq); >>> >>> /* Wait for Buffer Read Ready interrupt */ >>> @@ -1971,7 +1972,7 @@ static int sdhci_execute_tuning(struct mmc_host *mmc, u32 opcode) >>> (host->tuning_done == 1), >>> msecs_to_jiffies(50)); >>> disable_irq(host->irq); >>> - spin_lock(&host->lock); >>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags); >>> >>> if (!host->tuning_done) { >>> pr_info(DRIVER_NAME ": Timeout waiting for " >>> @@ -2046,7 +2047,7 @@ out: >>> err = 0; >>> >>> sdhci_clear_set_irqs(host, SDHCI_INT_DATA_AVAIL, ier); >>> - spin_unlock(&host->lock); >>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags); >>> enable_irq(host->irq); >>> sdhci_runtime_pm_put(host); >>> >>> -- >>> 1.8.5.2 >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic 2014-01-17 23:16 ` Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-17 23:40 ` Chris Ball 2014-01-18 3:21 ` Andrew Bresticker 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Chris Ball @ 2014-01-17 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Bresticker Cc: John Tobias, Philip Rakity, linux-mmc, linux-kernel, Dong Aisheng Hi, adding Aisheng, On Fri, Jan 17 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:11 PM, John Tobias <john.tobias.ph@gmail.com> wrote: >> There's an existing patch for that... >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg296596.html > > Ah, I see. Looks like it has yet to be picked up... The patches aren't quite identical -- Andrew's leaves the disable_irq() call in and Aisheng's removes it. Which should I take? Thanks, - Chris. -- Chris Ball <chris@printf.net> <http://printf.net/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic 2014-01-17 23:40 ` Chris Ball @ 2014-01-18 3:21 ` Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-18 3:40 ` Chris Ball 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-18 3:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Ball Cc: John Tobias, Philip Rakity, linux-mmc, linux-kernel, Dong Aisheng On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Chris Ball <chris@printf.net> wrote: > Hi, adding Aisheng, > > On Fri, Jan 17 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 3:11 PM, John Tobias <john.tobias.ph@gmail.com> wrote: >>> There's an existing patch for that... >>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg296596.html >> >> Ah, I see. Looks like it has yet to be picked up... > > The patches aren't quite identical -- Andrew's leaves the > disable_irq() call in and Aisheng's removes it. Which should I take? Since the disable_irq() is now redundant, I suppose Aisheng's is more correct. Thanks, Andrew > > Thanks, > > - Chris. > -- > Chris Ball <chris@printf.net> <http://printf.net/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic 2014-01-18 3:21 ` Andrew Bresticker @ 2014-01-18 3:40 ` Chris Ball 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Chris Ball @ 2014-01-18 3:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Bresticker Cc: John Tobias, Philip Rakity, linux-mmc, linux-kernel, Dong Aisheng Hi, On Sat, Jan 18 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote: >>>> There's an existing patch for that... >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg296596.html >>> >>> Ah, I see. Looks like it has yet to be picked up... >> >> The patches aren't quite identical -- Andrew's leaves the >> disable_irq() call in and Aisheng's removes it. Which should I take? > > Since the disable_irq() is now redundant, I suppose Aisheng's is more correct Thanks, pushed Aisheng's version to mmc-next for 3.14. - Chris. -- Chris Ball <chris@printf.net> <http://printf.net/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-01-18 3:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-01-17 19:57 [PATCH] mmc: sdhci: fix possible scheduling while atomic Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-17 22:58 ` Philip Rakity 2014-01-17 23:10 ` Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-17 23:11 ` John Tobias 2014-01-17 23:16 ` Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-17 23:40 ` Chris Ball 2014-01-18 3:21 ` Andrew Bresticker 2014-01-18 3:40 ` Chris Ball
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome