On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:13:27PM +0800, KaiChieh Chuang wrote: > In case, one BE is used by two FE1/FE2 > FE1--->BE--> > FE2---> > > When FE1/FE2 call dpcm_be_dai_hw_free() together > the BE users will be 2 (> 1), hence cannot be hw_free. > The be state will leave at, ex. SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_STOP > > Later FE1/FE2 call dpcm_be_dai_shutdown(), > will be skip due to wrong state. > Leaving the BE not being hw_free and shutdown. > > This patch add a flag in snd_soc_dpcm to denote > the hw_free cannot be excute for this fe->be dpcm. > The BE dai will be hw_free later when calling > dpcm_be_dai_shutdown() if still in invalid state. This works but feels messy and fragile - the problem here is that we use the users count to decide if we can do a hw_free() but we don't decrement that users count until shutdown which leaves the race condition you're fixing here. We probably need to add a second refcount here for hw_free() which also feels a bit messy but is probably robust. Another option is to just unconditionally do the hw_free() and clean up if we're in the wrong state rather than checking the flag (so basically your patch but ignoring the flag), that is simpler and should be robust - I can't think of any reason that'd be a problem?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
