On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:52:38PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 11:09 -0500, scameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 02:43:56PM +0800, Wei Yongjun wrote:
> > > From: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > In case of error, the function kthread_run() returns ERR_PTR()
> > > and never returns NULL. The NULL test in the return value check
> > > should be replaced with IS_ERR().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Yongjun <yongjun_wei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/scsi/hpsa.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
> > > index 891c86b..f413b14 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
> > > @@ -4757,7 +4757,8 @@ static void start_controller_lockup_detector(struct ctlr_info *h)
> > > kthread_run(detect_controller_lockup_thread,
> > > NULL, HPSA);
> > > }
> > > - if (!hpsa_lockup_detector) {
> > > + if (IS_ERR(hpsa_lockup_detector)) {
> > > + hpsa_lockup_detector = NULL;
> > > dev_warn(&h->pdev->dev,
> > > "Could not start lockup detector thread\n");
> > > return;
> >
> > Ack.
>
> Hmm, this whole lockup thread start/stop thing is horribly racy with
> hotplug (and bind and unbind).
>
> Firstly, why do you need an actual thread, why not just use a workqueue?
> That way you don't need a list or a lock, you can just schedule work for
> each instance? since they don't interfere, no global list and no lock.
>
> If you insist on a thread, it should probably start at module insertion
> and be shut down at module removal, so no races. You can have it sleep
> forever on list_empty(&hpsa_ctlr_list) and wake it when you add a
> controller.
Alright, I'll work on it. Thanks.
-- steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
