On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 04:59:02PM +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 06:24:10PM +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > >>Commit 0b950d3 (Input: tsc2005 - add open/close) introduced a > >>locking issue with the ESD watchdog: __tsc2005_disable() is calling > >>cancel_delayed_work_sync() with mutex held, and the work also needs the > >>same mutex. > >> > >>Fix the problem by using cancel_delayed_work() on disable. If > >>the ESD work was running it will check if the device is closed > >>or suspended, and in that case it will do nothing and skip > >>re-arming. cancel_delayed_work_sync() is still needed when the module > >>is removed. > > > >Hmm, indeed. However, instead of moving cancel_delayed_work_sync() to > >remove maybe we should use mutex_trylock() in tsc2005_esd_work()? > >If trylock fails that means that device is in the middle of open/close > >transition. We should just reschedule the work and get out of there. > > But I guess the reschedule should not happen if we are in the middle of > close/disable? And without the mutex we cannot know that. It should be OK to reschedule even as we enabling/disabling because cancel_delayed_work_sync() handles re-arming works so even if ESD work is being executed at the time we closing the device it will be killed off completely. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
