Hi, On 27 December 2016 at 10:39, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 12/26/2016 04:01 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: >> On some platfroms(like x86 platform), when one core is running the USB gadget >> irq thread handler by dwc3_thread_interrupt(), meanwhile another core also can >> respond other interrupts from dwc3 controller and modify the event buffer by >> dwc3_interrupt() function, that will cause getting the wrong event count in >> irq thread handler to make the USB function abnormal. >> >> We should add spin_lock/unlock() in dwc3_check_event_buf() to avoid this race. > > Why not spin_lock_irq ones? This lock seems to be used in both > normal and interrupt threads. Or, I missed anything? I assumed there are no nested interrupts, when one core is running at interrupt context, then it can not respond any other interrupts, which means we don't need to disable local IRQ now, right? -- Baolin.wang Best Regards -- 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
