Hello, On 30-03-20, 20:01, �̰��� wrote: > snd_soc_runtime_activate() and snd_soc_runtime_deactivate() > require locked pcm_mutex. > > Signed-off-by: Gyeongtaek Lee <gt82.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > sound/soc/soc-compress.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-compress.c b/sound/soc/soc-compress.c > index 392a1c5b15d3..42d416ac7e9b 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/soc-compress.c > +++ b/sound/soc/soc-compress.c > @@ -207,7 +207,9 @@ static int soc_compr_open_fe(struct snd_compr_stream > *cstream) > fe->dpcm[stream].state = SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_OPEN; > fe->dpcm[stream].runtime_update = SND_SOC_DPCM_UPDATE_NO; > > + mutex_lock_nested(&fe->pcm_mutex, fe->pcm_subclass); > snd_soc_runtime_activate(fe, stream); > + mutex_unlock(&fe->pcm_mutex); Can you please explain why you need the lock here, as > > mutex_unlock(&fe->card->mutex); we already have a lock here.. > @@ -285,7 +287,9 @@ static int soc_compr_free_fe(struct snd_compr_stream > *cstream) > else > stream = SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_CAPTURE; > > + mutex_lock_nested(&fe->pcm_mutex, fe->pcm_subclass); > snd_soc_runtime_deactivate(fe, stream); > + mutex_unlock(&fe->pcm_mutex); And this instance is also using fe->card->mutex.. so I think double lock may not serve any purpose here.. Can you explain why we need the extra lock? Thanks -- ~Vinod
