This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even initialized
with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
---
drivers/ps3/ps3-vuart.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.23/drivers/ps3/ps3-vuart.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.23.orig/drivers/ps3/ps3-vuart.c
+++ linux-2.6.23/drivers/ps3/ps3-vuart.c
@@ -1072,7 +1072,6 @@ static int ps3_vuart_probe(struct ps3_sy
if (result) {
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d: drv->probe failed\n",
__func__, __LINE__);
- down(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex);
goto fail_probe;
}
--
> This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
> The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even initialized
> with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> drivers/ps3/ps3-vuart.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <[email protected]>
Looks, good.
Andrew, Please apply.
-Geoff
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:00:12 -0800
Geoff Levand <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
> > The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even initialized
> > with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/ps3/ps3-vuart.c | 1 -
> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <[email protected]>
>
>
> Looks, good.
Looks bad to me.
> Andrew, Please apply.
The current code:
if (result) {
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d: drv->probe failed\n",
__func__, __LINE__);
down(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex);
goto fail_probe;
}
up(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex);
return result;
fail_probe:
ps3_vuart_set_interrupt_mask(dev, 0);
kfree(dev->driver_priv);
dev->driver_priv = NULL;
fail_dev_malloc:
vuart_bus_priv.devices[dev->port_number] = NULL;
fail_busy:
ps3_vuart_bus_interrupt_put();
fail_setup_interrupt:
up(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex);
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d: failed\n", __func__, __LINE__);
return result;
}
is correct. Although not exactly a thing of beauty.
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 17:10 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> is correct. Although not exactly a thing of beauty.
This isn't the worst I've seen ;( .. Do you think the ending should fall
through instead of having two returns?
Daniel
On 12/18/2007 05:10 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:00:12 -0800
> Geoff Levand <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > This stray down would cause a permanent sleep which doesn't seem correct.
>> > The other uses of this semaphore appear fairly mutex like it's even initialized
>> > with init_MUTEX() .. So here a patch for removing this one down().
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > drivers/ps3/ps3-vuart.c | 1 -
>> > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Geoff Levand <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>> Looks, good.
>
> Looks bad to me.
Hi Andrew,
Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
does indeed remove an incorrectly placed down(). Here is the
entire routine, marked with what the patch removes.
static int ps3_vuart_probe(struct ps3_system_bus_device *dev)
{
int result;
struct ps3_vuart_port_driver *drv;
struct ps3_vuart_port_priv *priv = NULL;
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d\n", __func__, __LINE__);
drv = ps3_system_bus_dev_to_vuart_drv(dev);
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d: (%s)\n", __func__, __LINE__,
drv->core.core.name);
BUG_ON(!drv);
if (dev->port_number >= PORT_COUNT) {
BUG();
return -EINVAL;
}
down(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex);
result = ps3_vuart_bus_interrupt_get();
if (result)
goto fail_setup_interrupt;
if (vuart_bus_priv.devices[dev->port_number]) {
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d: port busy (%d)\n", __func__,
__LINE__, dev->port_number);
result = -EBUSY;
goto fail_busy;
}
vuart_bus_priv.devices[dev->port_number] = dev;
/* Setup dev->driver_priv. */
dev->driver_priv = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ps3_vuart_port_priv),
GFP_KERNEL);
if (!dev->driver_priv) {
result = -ENOMEM;
goto fail_dev_malloc;
}
priv = to_port_priv(dev);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&priv->tx_list.head);
spin_lock_init(&priv->tx_list.lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&priv->rx_list.head);
spin_lock_init(&priv->rx_list.lock);
INIT_WORK(&priv->rx_list.work.work, NULL);
priv->rx_list.work.trigger = 0;
priv->rx_list.work.dev = dev;
/* clear stale pending interrupts */
ps3_vuart_clear_rx_bytes(dev, 0);
ps3_vuart_set_interrupt_mask(dev, INTERRUPT_MASK_RX);
ps3_vuart_set_triggers(dev, 1, 1);
if (drv->probe)
result = drv->probe(dev);
else {
result = 0;
dev_info(&dev->core, "%s:%d: no probe method\n", __func__,
__LINE__);
}
if (result) {
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d: drv->probe failed\n",
__func__, __LINE__);
removed >>>>>> down(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex); <<<<<<<<<<<
goto fail_probe;
}
up(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex);
return result;
fail_probe:
ps3_vuart_set_interrupt_mask(dev, 0);
kfree(dev->driver_priv);
dev->driver_priv = NULL;
fail_dev_malloc:
vuart_bus_priv.devices[dev->port_number] = NULL;
fail_busy:
ps3_vuart_bus_interrupt_put();
fail_setup_interrupt:
up(&vuart_bus_priv.probe_mutex);
dev_dbg(&dev->core, "%s:%d: failed\n", __func__, __LINE__);
return result;
}
Thanks for taking the time to scrutinize.
-Geoff
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
> Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
> that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
> does indeed remove an incorrectly placed down(). Here is the
> entire routine, marked with what the patch removes.
>
Andrew have you had a chance to review this?
Daniel
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:32:25 -0800 Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
> > that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
> > does indeed remove an incorrectly placed down(). Here is the
> > entire routine, marked with what the patch removes.
> >
>
> Andrew have you had a chance to review this?
>
Confused. I did review it: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/18/384
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 12:06 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:32:25 -0800 Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 19:04 -0800, Geoff Levand wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately there wasn't enough context in the patch to see
> > > that there is a down() earlier in the routine, and that the patch
> > > does indeed remove an incorrectly placed down(). Here is the
> > > entire routine, marked with what the patch removes.
> > >
> >
> > Andrew have you had a chance to review this?
> >
>
> Confused. I did review it: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/18/384
Yeah, but Geoff countered http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/18/409
Do you still think the patch is wrong, given the whole function?
Daniel