On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > As discussed in [1] the tasklet_disable is not a proper function for teardown. > > The driver also uses correct method of tasklet_kill. So remove tasklet_disable > > > > [1]: http://lwn.net/Articles/588457/ > > > > Reported-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c | 1 - > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c b/drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c > > index e2c04dc..c13a3bb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma/at_hdmac.c > > @@ -1569,7 +1569,6 @@ static int at_dma_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > /* Disable interrupts */ > > atc_disable_chan_irq(atdma, chan->chan_id); > > - tasklet_disable(&atchan->tasklet); > > > > tasklet_kill(&atchan->tasklet); > > list_del(&chan->device_node); > > So you disable the irq at the device level, but what makes sure that > the last interrupt on that line has completed and no further > scheduling of the tasklet can happen? See [1] :) Okay the irq is freed here. The free_irq() will ensure that the last interrupt has completed. At least that's what documentation says "The function does not return until any executing interrupts for this IRQ have completed" and if i read the code correctly it does so as well. So wouldn't that take care of no further scheduling of tasklet here or I missed something? Then, the tasklet_kill will ensure the scheduled ones are completed as well -- ~Vinod -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
