On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:18:09PM +0800, Xiang Zheng wrote: > Commit "7ea7e98fd8d0" suggests that the "pci_lock" is sufficient, > and all the callers of pci_wait_cfg() are wrapped with the "pci_lock". > > However, since the commit "cdcb33f98244" merged, the accesses to > the pci_cfg_wait queue are not safe anymore. A "pci_lock" is > insufficient and we need to hold an additional queue lock while > read/write the wait queue. > > So let's use the add_wait_queue()/remove_wait_queue() instead of > __add_wait_queue()/__remove_wait_queue(). As I said earlier, this reintroduces the deadlock addressed by cdcb33f9824429a926b971bf041a6cec238f91ff
