Hi, On 12/27/2016 10:58 AM, Baolin Wang wrote: > 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? > Fair enough. Thanks. Best regards, Lu Baolu -- 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
