lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 4/4] usb: gadget: udc-core: independent registration of gadgets and gadget drivers
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:27:36AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>
> > From: Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@gmail.com>
> >
> > Change behavior during registration of gadgets and
> > gadget drivers in udc-core. Instead of previous
> > approach when for successful probe of usb gadget driver
> > at least one usb gadget should be already registered
> > use another one where gadget drivers and gadgets
> > can be registered in udc-core independently.
> >
> > Independent registration of gadgets and gadget drivers
> > is useful for built-in into kernel gadget and gadget
> > driver case - because it's possible that gadget is
> > really probed only on late_init stage (due to deferred
> > probe) whereas gadget driver's probe is silently failed
> > on module_init stage due to no any UDC added.
> >
> > Also it is useful for modules case - now there is no
> > difference what module to insert first: gadget module
> > or gadget driver one.
> >
> > Tested-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@gmail.com>
> > [simplified code as requested by Alan Stern and Felipe Balbi]
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>
> ...
>
> > @@ -475,9 +492,16 @@ void usb_del_gadget_udc(struct usb_gadget *gadget)
> > list_del(&udc->list);
> > mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
> >
> > - if (udc->driver)
> > + if (udc->driver) {
> > + struct usb_gadget_driver *driver = udc->driver;
> > +
> > usb_gadget_remove_driver(udc);
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&udc_lock);
> > + list_add(&driver->pending, &gadget_driver_pending_list);
> > + mutex_unlock(&udc_lock);
> > + }
>
> It looks like there is a race here with usb_gadget_unregister_driver().
> Would it be okay to hold the udc_lock mutex throughout the whole "if"
> statement?
>

+1

In fact, only one mutex_lock/mutex_unlock is needed at this function.
--

Best Regards,
Peter Chen


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-23 09:01    [W:0.107 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site