On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:00:39AM -0700, Gokul krishna Krishnakumar wrote:
> In case recovery is disabled, do not report the rproc crash
> to the framework. If recovery is enabled after we start the
> crash handler we may end up in a weird state by informing
> clients of a crash twice, resulting in undefined behaviour.
>
Afaict rproc_report_crash() schedules work which does nothing useful if
!rproc->recovery_disabled.
Can you please help me understand the issue you're seeing, and
preferably spell out what the resulting weird state is.
Thanks,
Bjorn
> Change-Id: If0d9bf5aa2c6f9e25adcefaca14b2de60fcb1a7a
> Signed-off-by: Gokul krishna Krishnakumar <quic_gokukris@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c | 10 ++++++----
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c
> index 89f5384..1b9e1e1 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5.c
> @@ -103,6 +103,8 @@ static void qcom_q6v5_crash_handler_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> mutex_lock(&rproc->lock);
>
> + rproc->state = RPROC_CRASHED;
> +
> list_for_each_entry_reverse(subdev, &rproc->subdevs, node) {
> if (subdev->stop)
> subdev->stop(subdev, true);
> @@ -139,8 +141,8 @@ static irqreturn_t q6v5_wdog_interrupt(int irq, void *data)
> q6v5->running = false;
> if (q6v5->rproc->recovery_disabled)
> schedule_work(&q6v5->crash_handler);
> -
> - rproc_report_crash(q6v5->rproc, RPROC_WATCHDOG);
> + else
> + rproc_report_crash(q6v5->rproc, RPROC_WATCHDOG);
>
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> @@ -163,8 +165,8 @@ static irqreturn_t q6v5_fatal_interrupt(int irq, void *data)
> q6v5->running = false;
> if (q6v5->rproc->recovery_disabled)
> schedule_work(&q6v5->crash_handler);
> -
> - rproc_report_crash(q6v5->rproc, RPROC_FATAL_ERROR);
> + else
> + rproc_report_crash(q6v5->rproc, RPROC_FATAL_ERROR);
>
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> --
> 2.7.4
>
