On 03/06, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > static void hotkey_poll_stop_sync(void)
> > {
> > if (tpacpi_hotkey_task) {
> > kthread_stop(tpacpi_hotkey_task);
> > tpacpi_hotkey_task = NULL;
> > mutex_lock(&hotkey_thread_mutex);
> > /* at this point, the thread did exit */
> > mutex_unlock(&hotkey_thread_mutex);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > And I simply do not understand the comment. This thread has already exited
> > when kthread_stop() returns (OK, it can be running do_exit() paths but this
> > doesn't matter). So this mutex_lock() buys nothing afaics.
>
> It was added due to an oops, waaaaay back then. If it is not needed
> anymore, and there is zero chance of the kthread still being active when
> hotkey_poll_stop_sync() ends, hotkey_thread_mutex can be simply removed.
Well, there could be another bug. Say, hotkey_poll_stop_sync() can block
on hotkey_thread_mutex if another thread was started. But at first glance
this can't happen (hotkey_mutex), and even _if_ it can this needs another
fix.
> Looks like it, if the current semanthics of ktread_stop() are syncronous.
IIRC, it always was... But at least currently it is certainly syncronous.
kthread_stop(t) does wait_for_completion(t->vfork_done), complete(vfork_done)
can't happen unless this task calls do_exit().
Hmm. I just noticed that the recent changes in kthread_stop() are not correct...
But this is offtopic and doesn't affect thinkpad_acpi.c, I'll write another
email later.
So, what do you think about (UNTESTED) 1/1 ?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
