On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-07-18 18:27:12 [-0700], Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> > index 6fea80afe2d7..ec83f2f9a858 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_tcm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/function/f_tcm.c
> > @@ -955,7 +949,7 @@ static void usbg_data_write_cmpl(struct usb_ep *ep, struct usb_request *req)
> > se_cmd->data_length);
> > }
> >
> > - complete(&cmd->write_complete);
> > + target_execute_cmd(se_cmd);
>
> usbg_data_write_cmpl() is invoked from interrupt service routing which
> may run with disabled interrupts. From looking at target_execute_cmd():
It will always be called with interrupts disabled as documented in
usb_request API.
> | void target_execute_cmd(struct se_cmd *cmd)
> | {
> …
> | spin_lock_irq(&cmd->t_state_lock);
> …
> | spin_unlock_irq(&cmd->t_state_lock);
> …
> | }
>
> which means interrupts will remain open after leaving
> target_execute_cmd(). Now, why didn't the WARN_ONCE() in
> __handle_irq_event_percpu() trigger? Am I missing something?
>
> > return;
>
Since target_execute_cmd() is called in usbg_data_write_cmpl(),
interrupts are still disabled.
Thanks,
Thinh
