Re: "deadlock" between smc91x driver and link_watch

From
Nicolas Pitre <hidden>
Date
2004-11-24 17:14:43
Also in
lkml
Reply to
Ian Campbell, 2004-11-24
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:21 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
quoted
How do you ensure that smc_phy_configure() can't end up being called 
after smc_phy_powerdown() here?
Hmm, I think that smc_phy_configure() is only called from
smc_drv_resume() and smc_timeout() (via the workqueue).
There is smc_open() as well, but only smc_timeout() is really 
problematic because of the schedule_work() call.
The other solution might be to set phy_type to 0 in smc_phy_powerdown()
and then redetect it in smc_open() and smc_resume(). Or just use another
flag altogether.
Please make it another flag.  You could replace your dev_hold(dev) with 
lp->work_pending = 1 and dev_put() with lp->work_pending = 0, then 
adding a while (lp->work_pending) schedule() in place of the 
flush_scheduled_work().

And while you're at it, could you replace:

smc_phy_configure(void *data)

with

smc_phy_configure(struct net_device *dev)

The parameter doesn't have to be void *data anymore now that you 
introduced smc_phy_configure_wq().

And finally, please tell about the reason why flush_scheduled_work() 
can't be used in your comment.


Nicolas
Thread (10 messages) 10 messages, 3 authors, last reply 2004-11-27
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread / next series-diff position
kprevious message in thread / previous series-diff position
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help