Sun, 11 May 2014 17:09:27 -0300 от Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Sun, 11 May 2014 16:57:57 -0300 от Fabio Estevam <festevam@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Running linux-next 20140509 on a mx28evk I observe the following warning:
> >>
> >> [ 8.526613] Freeing unused kernel memory: 232K (c0683000 - c06bd000)
> >> starting pid 56, tty '': '/etc/rc.d/rcS'
> >> [ 9.110314]
> >> [ 9.111864] =====================================
> >> [ 9.116603] [ BUG: init/1 still has locks held! ]
> >> [ 9.121488] 3.15.0-rc4-next-20140509-00001-g319564e #1154 Not tainted
> >> [ 9.128071] -------------------------------------
> >> [ 9.132825] 1 lock held by init/1:
> >> [ 9.136252] #0: (global_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<c0387d68>] mxs_dcp_probe+0x14
> >> [ 9.144196]
> >> [ 9.144196] stack backtrace:
> >> [ 9.148888] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 3.15.0-rc4-next-20140509-004
> >> [ 9.157610] [<c000da40>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c000bda4>] (show_stack+0x)
> >> [ 9.165595] [<c000bda4>] (show_stack) from [<c00153d4>] (do_fork+0x2c8/0x3cc)
> >> [ 9.172921] [<c00153d4>] (do_fork) from [<c0015550>] (sys_vfork+0x20/0x2c)
> >> [ 9.179973] [<c0015550>] (sys_vfork) from [<c0009580>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0)
> >> Mounting /proc and /sys
> >>
> >> Should we really use a global mutex here? What is a proper fix for this?
> >
> > On my opinion mutex_lock/unlock should not be used in probe.
> > Try to remove this entirely.
>
> I think the same. Will submit a patch doing as suggested.
AFAIK, probe/remove are serialized and running only on one CPU/thread,
so any mutexes/spinlocks really not needed.
2ML: Please, FIXME if I am think incorrect.
---
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���{ay� ʇڙ���f���h������_�(�階�ݢj"��������G����?���&��
