Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
To:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        nicolas.ferre@microchip.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        allen.lkml@gmail.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] usb: gadget: r8a66597: Fix two possible sleep-in-atomic-context bugs in init_controller()
References: <20180620035453.7721-1-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
        <87efh0o6f9.fsf@belgarion.home> <87y3eydrs1.fsf@linux.intel.com>
        <87efgqkrzl.fsf@belgarion.home> <87k1qhevpd.fsf@linux.intel.com>
        <87a7rdlup1.fsf@belgarion.home> <87bmbtetdk.fsf@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:21:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87bmbtetdk.fsf@linux.intel.com> (Felipe Balbi's message of "Fri,
        29 Jun 2018 14:15:19 +0300")
Message-ID: <876021lods.fsf@belgarion.home>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> writes:
>>>> And as bonus question, why is it better to have mdelay() calls in the driver ?
>>>
>>> As a bugfix, it's the smallest fix possible, right? Ideally, we wouldn't
>>> need either of them. Perhaps there's a bit which can be polled instead?
>> Ideally yes. Do you remember if a "threaded interrupt" might use msleep() ? I
>> seem to remember that they can, so won't that be another alternative ?
>
> yeah, unless, of course, you have a spinlock held. ;-)
Ah yes, unless that :)

I would have proposed to call the disconnect out of the spinlock path, but
looking at the r8a66592_usb_disconnect(), with its spinlock flip-flop, I loose
heart ...

And even if I still think no mdelay() should be used, because of the kernel
stall (and global uniprocessor stall), I won't argue anymore. After all, if you
let in the mdelay(), perhaps the maintainers will agree to review their
architecture and drop the locks or sleeps in interrupt context in a follow-up
patch, who knows ...

Cheers.

-- 
Robert