Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 05:00:26 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: ->poll() instances shouldn't be indefinitely blocking
Message-ID: <20151127050026.GX22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1240
Lines: 35

Take a look at this:
static unsigned int gsc_m2m_poll(struct file *file,
                                        struct poll_table_struct *wait)
{
        struct gsc_ctx *ctx = fh_to_ctx(file->private_data);
        struct gsc_dev *gsc = ctx->gsc_dev;
        int ret;

        if (mutex_lock_interruptible(&gsc->lock))
                return -ERESTARTSYS;

        ret = v4l2_m2m_poll(file, ctx->m2m_ctx, wait);
        mutex_unlock(&gsc->lock);

        return ret;
}

a) ->poll() should not return -E...; callers expect just a bitmap of
POLL... values.

b) sure, it's nice that if this thing hangs, we'll be able to kill it.
However, if one's ->poll() can hang indefinitely, it means bad things
for poll(2), select(2), etc. semantics.  What the hell had been intended
there?

c) a bunch of v4l2_m2m_poll() callers are also taking some kind of
mutex; AFAICS, all of those appear bogus (the rest of them do not
play wiht ERESTARTSYS, just plain mutex_lock() for those).

What's going on there?
--
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/