On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> argh, we have nested spinlocks :-( Well, we shouldn't call
> usb_ep_disable() with locks held AFAICR. So the following should be
> enough:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
> index 919d7d1b611c..2e9359c58eb9 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c
> @@ -732,8 +732,10 @@ static void reset_config(struct usb_composite_dev *cdev)
> DBG(cdev, "reset config\n");
>
> list_for_each_entry(f, &cdev->config->functions, list) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&cdev->lock);
> if (f->disable)
> f->disable(f);
> + spin_lock_irq(&cdev->lock);
>
> bitmap_zero(f->endpoints, 32);
> }
>
> Alan, do you remember if we have a requirement for not holding locks
> when calling usb_ep_disable()? I can't find Documentation about it, but
> history shows me that usb_ep_disable() was called without locks and IRQs
> enabled. Do you think we should update documentation about this?
I don't think there is any requirement for interrupts to be enabled
when usb_ep_disable() runs. At least, a quick check shows that both
net2280 and dummy-hcd use spin_lock_irqsave() rather than spin_lock()
in their disable routines.
Holding locks is a different story. It should be okay for a gadget
driver to hold one of its own locks when disabling an endpoint (which
means that the gadget's disable routine shouldn't wait for a concurrent
giveback to finish), but we might want to avoid holding a lock in the
composite core. Although even that might be okay -- I can't think of
any reason why a udc driver would need to call back into the composite
core while disabling an endpoint. It should be a pretty self-contained
operation.
Alan Stern
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
