Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2012, 08:19:32 schrieb Oliver Neukum:
> Am Mittwoch, 25. April 2012, 03:27:19 schrieb Ming Lei:
> > @@ -546,8 +557,13 @@ static void __usbhid_submit_report(struct
> > hid_device *hid, struct hid_report *re
> > * no race because this is called under
> > * spinlock
> > */
> > - if (time_after(jiffies, usbhid->last_out + HZ * 5))
> > +
> > + if (time_after(jiffies, usbhid->last_out + HZ * 5) &&
> > + !usbhid->urbout->unlinked) {
> > + spin_unlock(&usbhid->lock);
> > usb_unlink_urb(usbhid->urbout);
> > + spin_lock(&usbhid->lock);
> > + }
> > }
> > return;
> > }
>
> Same objection. You are just making the race unlikelier. The flag
> needs to be set under a lock you hold while checking time_after().
> We'd be back at the original proposal.
In fact, now that I think about it, we could solve this with splitting
up usb_poison_urb(). We need to increase urb->reject under the
lock and then drop the lock. The only problem is double timeout.
Regards
Oliver
--
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
