On 16 March 2017 at 11:56, Wolfram Sang
<wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In the (maybe academical) case, we don't get a DATAEND interrupt after
> DMA completed, we will wait endlessly for the completion to complete.
> This is not bad per se, since we have a more generic completion tracking
> a timeout. In that rare case, however, the DMA buffer will not get
> unmapped and we have a leak. Reorder the code, so unmapping will always
> take place.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks, applied for next!
Kind regards
Uffe
> ---
>
> It's probably academical, still I think it is better to not have any leaks in
> favor of slightly more lock hazzling. Open for opionions, though, this is why
> I send out as RFC.
>
> drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c
> index c7684fa91f1f9c..e2093db2b7ffce 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/tmio_mmc_dma.c
> @@ -47,8 +47,6 @@ static void tmio_mmc_dma_callback(void *arg)
> {
> struct tmio_mmc_host *host = arg;
>
> - wait_for_completion(&host->dma_dataend);
> -
> spin_lock_irq(&host->lock);
>
> if (!host->data)
> @@ -63,6 +61,11 @@ static void tmio_mmc_dma_callback(void *arg)
> host->sg_ptr, host->sg_len,
> DMA_TO_DEVICE);
>
> + spin_unlock_irq(&host->lock);
> +
> + wait_for_completion(&host->dma_dataend);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&host->lock);
> tmio_mmc_do_data_irq(host);
> out:
> spin_unlock_irq(&host->lock);
> --
> 2.11.0
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
