On 07/11/2014 07:33 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:48:48AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> On 07/11/2014 11:43 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
>>>> +static void cap1106_work(struct work_struct *w)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct cap1106_priv *priv = container_of(w, struct cap1106_priv, work);
>>>>> + unsigned int status;
>>>>> + int ret, i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_lock(&priv->lock);
>>> If your worker started and is _about_ to take the spinlock, you might
>>> dead-lock with cap1106_close(). They might already hold the spinlock
>>> and then call cancel_work_sync(), thus waiting for this task to take
>>> the lock end exit..
>>>
>>> How about you add "bool closed : 1;" to your cap1106_priv structure
>>> and drop the lock here, but..
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the review, David. Will look into it and send a v2 with these
>> changes soon.
>
> Why aren't you using threaded oneshot IRQ for this? Then you would not
> need all this dancing around with worker and enabling/disabling
> interrupt.
Ah, right, that's much nicer indeed.
Thanks for the pointer! I'll post v3 later.
Daniel
--
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
