On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 02:31:02PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020, Johan Hovold wrote: > > >On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 08:27:25PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > >> @@ -1883,21 +1724,17 @@ static void mos7720_release(struct usb_serial *serial) > >> if (mos_parport->msg_pending) > >> wait_for_completion_timeout(&mos_parport->syncmsg_compl, > >> msecs_to_jiffies(MOS_WDR_TIMEOUT)); > >> + /* > >> + * If delayed work is currently scheduled, wait for it to > >> + * complete. This also implies barriers that ensure the > >> + * below serial clearing is not hoisted above the ->work. > >> + */ > >> + cancel_work_sync(&mos_parport->work); > > > >As I mentioned, this needs to be done *after* deregistering the port or > >you could theoretically end up with the work item being requeued. > > Hmm sorry yes I forgot to mention this. I was counting on the private_data > already being null to prevent any new work being actually scheduled, so an > incoming restore state, for example, would be a nop. Ah, yes, you're right. > >Yes, the same applies for the "synchronous" requests, but that's a > >preexisting issue. > > Per the above I also assumed sync requests were also safe as is. Indeed. > But I can certainly re-order things, how about: No, that's ok, no need to change this as part of this clean up. Can you just fix up that irq comment, and I'll apply this? Thanks. Johan
