On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 07:51:32PM +0530, Amitkumar Karwar wrote:
> From: Xinming Hu <huxm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This patch ensures to wait for firmware dump completion in
> mwifiex_remove_card().
>
> For sdio interface, reset_trigger variable is used to identify
> if mwifiex_sdio_remove() is called by sdio_work during reset or
> the call is from sdio subsystem.
>
> This patch fixes a kernel crash observed during reboot when firmware
> dump operation is in process.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xinming Hu <huxm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <akarwar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c | 2 ++
> drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c
> index 986bf07..4512e86 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/pcie.c
> @@ -528,6 +528,8 @@ static void mwifiex_pcie_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev)
> if (!adapter || !adapter->priv_num)
> return;
>
> + cancel_work_sync(&pcie_work);
Is there a good reason you have to cancel the work? What if you were
just to finish it (i.e., flush_work())?
In any case, I think this is fine, so for the PCIe bits:
Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> +
> if (user_rmmod && !adapter->mfg_mode) {
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> if (adapter->is_suspended)
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> index 4cad1c2..f974260 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/marvell/mwifiex/sdio.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,15 @@
> */
> static u8 user_rmmod;
>
> +/* reset_trigger variable is used to identify if mwifiex_sdio_remove()
> + * is called by sdio_work during reset or the call is from sdio subsystem.
> + * We will cancel sdio_work only if the call is from sdio subsystem.
> + */
> +static u8 reset_triggered;
> +
> +static void mwifiex_sdio_work(struct work_struct *work);
> +static DECLARE_WORK(sdio_work, mwifiex_sdio_work);
> +
> static struct mwifiex_if_ops sdio_ops;
> static unsigned long iface_work_flags;
>
> @@ -289,6 +298,9 @@ mwifiex_sdio_remove(struct sdio_func *func)
> if (!adapter || !adapter->priv_num)
> return;
>
> + if (!reset_triggered)
> + cancel_work_sync(&sdio_work);
> +
> mwifiex_dbg(adapter, INFO, "info: SDIO func num=%d\n", func->num);
>
> if (user_rmmod && !adapter->mfg_mode) {
> @@ -2290,7 +2302,9 @@ static void mwifiex_recreate_adapter(struct sdio_mmc_card *card)
> * discovered and initializes them from scratch.
> */
>
> + reset_triggered = 1;
> mwifiex_sdio_remove(func);
> + reset_triggered = 0;
Boy that's ugly! Couldn't you just create something like
__mwifiex_sdio_remove(), which does everything except the
cancel_work_sync()? Then you'd do this for the .remove() callback:
cancel_work_sync(&sdio_work);
__mwifiex_sdio_remove(func);
and for mwifiex_recreate_adapter() you'd just call
__mwifiex_sdio_remove()? The static variable that simply serves as a
(non-reentrant) function call parameter seems like a really poor
alternative to this simple refactoring.
Or you could just address the TODO in this function, and you wouldn't
have to do this dance at all...
Brian
>
> /* power cycle the adapter */
> sdio_claim_host(func);
> @@ -2621,7 +2635,6 @@ static void mwifiex_sdio_work(struct work_struct *work)
> mwifiex_sdio_card_reset_work(save_adapter);
> }
>
> -static DECLARE_WORK(sdio_work, mwifiex_sdio_work);
> /* This function resets the card */
> static void mwifiex_sdio_card_reset(struct mwifiex_adapter *adapter)
> {
> --
> 1.9.1
>
