On Fri, 7 Mar 2014, Vinod Koul wrote: > 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 I was just asking. The free_irq() does the trick, yes. Thanks, tglx -- 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
