Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:27:08 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [WARNING] local_bh_enable with irqs disabled: |
| |
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:00:03 -0700 David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 05 June 2008, you wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:11:23 +0200 (CEST) Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > Which kernel version are you running? > > > > > > Sorry, this was a 2.6.26-rc3 based kernel with the gpio-sysfs patch from > > > David, e.g., http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121107105300923&w=2, > > > which introduces a call to device_unregister via gpiochip_unexport(chip); > > > in gpiochip_remove. > > > > OK, thanks. > > > > That's quite buggy and would have generated so many runtime warnings in > > a "developer" setup (rofl) that I look at Documentation/SubmitChecklist > > and just weep. > > > > I'll drop it. > > That seems excessive. I observe a locking bug with a trivial fix; > happened because *one* code path (rmmod -- not often used with GPIOs > once they work) couldn't be tested on most of my test rigs. It would > produce *ONE* runtime warning on that code path. > > Other than missing one test case, the only other significant issue > from SubmitChecklist is that the Documentation/ABI update needs to > hold up until this merges to mainline, since one part of it includes > the date where that interface became available. > > So ... what else were you thinking was trouble? >
The patch had a great string of sysfs operations and mutex-takings all happening under spinlock. Obviously all that code hadn't been tested. I didn't take the time to sit down and analyse where it was all happening.
| |