On 2022-08-26 18:37:36 [+0000], Thinh Nguyen wrote:
> 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.
but you do realize that target_execute_cmd() will leave with enabled
interrupts and this is not desired? I _think_ this was the reason why I
ended up with the wait+complete construct instead of invoking this
function directly.
An _irqsave() in target_execute_cmd() would probably be all you need
here.
> Thanks,
> Thinh
Sebastian
