On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 05:21:42PM +0800, yixuanjiang wrote: > From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > The existing locking for DPCM has several issues > a) a confusing mix of card->mutex and card->pcm_mutex. > b) a dpcm_lock spinlock added inconsistently and on paths that could > be recursively taken. The use of irqsave/irqrestore was also overkill. > > The suggested model is: > > 1) The pcm_mutex is the top-most protection of BE links in the FE. The > pcm_mutex is applied always on either the top PCM callbacks or the > external call from DAPM, not taken in the internal functions. > > 2) the FE stream lock is taken in higher levels before invoking > dpcm_be_dai_trigger() > > 3) when adding and deleting a BE, both the pcm_mutex and FE stream > lock are taken. > > Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > [clarification of commit message by plbossart] > Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Kai Vehmanen <kai.vehmanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Bard Liao <yung-chuan.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Ranjani Sridharan <ranjani.sridharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211207173745.15850-4-pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.15.x > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- What is the git commit id of this patch in Linus's tree? thanks, greg k-h
