On 2016-05-26 02:36, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Manfred Schlaegl wrote:
>> On 2016-05-20 18:59, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> Hi Manfred,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:16:49PM +0200, Manfred Schlaegl wrote:
>>>> @@ -133,6 +149,8 @@ static int pwm_beeper_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> {
>>>> struct pwm_beeper *beeper = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>>
>>>> + cancel_work_sync(&beeper->work);
>>>> +
>>>> input_unregister_device(beeper->input);
>>>
>>> This is racy, request to play may come in after cancel_work_sync()
>>> returns but before we unregistered input device. I think you want the
>>> version below.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> yes you are right. Thank you for your feedback.
>> I also see that point, but I think it would be a simpler change just
>> to cancel the worker after unregistering the device (to reorder
>> cancel_work_sync and input_unregister_device).
>
> That is an option, but I wanter to have close() because I also want to
> convert the driver to used devm for allocating resources, and then we'd
> need close() anyway so that we can get rid of remove() method.
>
> Thanks.
>
Ok. Thanks for clarification.
I will send a patch with the modifications you suggested before.
The following patch will also have some slight modifications in line numbers to make it apply after
cfae56f18 (input: misc: pwm-beeper: Explicitly apply PWM config extracted from pwm_args).
best regards,
Manfred
--
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
