On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:19:49PM -0500, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 10:04:29PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:53:22PM -0700, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > Hi Vinod,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:34:08PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:22:44PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > +static inline void sun6i_dma_free(struct sun6i_dma_dev *sdc)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int i;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < NR_MAX_VCHANS; i++) {
> > > > > + struct sun6i_vchan *vchan = &sdc->vchans[i];
> > > > > +
> > > > > + list_del(&vchan->vc.chan.device_node);
> > > > > + tasklet_kill(&vchan->vc.task);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + tasklet_kill(&sdc->task);
> > > > This is again not good. see http://lwn.net/Articles/588457/
> > > > At this point HW can still generate interrupts or you can have irq running!
> > >
> > > I'm not sure to fully understand the issue here, but what is not good?
> > > the first or the second tasklet_kill calls, or both?
> > >
> > > From what I understood, the issue is only there whenever you are
> > > calling tasklet_disable without making sure that no one will schedule
> > > your tasklet before disabling it.
> > >
> > > But the point is I don't actually use either _enable/_disable. I might
> > > be wrong in not using those functions, but I don't really see how I
> > > can be impacted.
> >
> > Well that was one part of it. How do you ensure the tasklet is not scheduled
> > while and after you are killing it. You need to ensure irq is disabled and pending irqs
> > have finished processing. I dont see that bit.
>
> Ok. I'll change that.
>
> Do you want me to use tasklet_enable and tasklet_disable as well?
I dont think it will help in this usage.
--
~Vinod
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
