From: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de>,
Bernie Thompson <bernie@plugable.com>,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@shawell.net>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v2] fb: udlfb: fix hang at disconnect
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:17:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51100930.6080405@ahsoftware.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <510FA409.2080201@ahsoftware.de>
Am 04.02.2013 13:05, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 04.02.2013 02:14, schrieb Greg KH:
>
>> So you are right in that your driver will wait for forever for a
>> disconnect() to happen, as it will never be called. I don't understand
>> the problem that this is causing when it happens. What's wrong with
>> udlfb that having the cpu suddently reset as the powerdown happened
>> without it knowing about it?
>
> There is nothing wrong with that. I've just explained why a problem
> doesn't occur on shutdown but on disconnect (of the device).
Maybe my explanation before was just to long and I try to explain it a
bit shorter:
If a device gets disconnected, the disconnect in udlfb might wait
forever in down_interruptible() (because it waits for an urb it never
receives). This even prevents a shutdown afterwards, because that
down_interruptible() never receives a signal (at shutdown, because
kernel threads don't get such).
So the change from down_timeout() to down_interruptible() in
dlfb_free_urb_list() with commit
33077b8d3042e01da61924973e372abe589ba297 only results in that the
following code (thus the break there) will never be reached if an urb
got missed (because of a disconnect).
And the accompanying comment (... at shutdown) is misleading, because on
shutdown, the kernel thread which calls dlfb_free_urb_list() never gets
a signal, so the interruption just never happens.
As I've experienced the "missing urb on disconnect" problem quiet often,
I've changed that down_interruptible() to down_timeout() (in v1 and in
v2 to down_timeout_interruptible, because I wasn't aware that no signal
arrives on shutdown).
Hmm, ok, that explanation isn't much shorter. ;)
Regards,
Alexander
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org,
Florian Tobias Schandinat <FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de>,
Bernie Thompson <bernie@plugable.com>,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@shawell.net>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3 v2] fb: udlfb: fix hang at disconnect
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:17:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51100930.6080405@ahsoftware.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <510FA409.2080201@ahsoftware.de>
Am 04.02.2013 13:05, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 04.02.2013 02:14, schrieb Greg KH:
>
>> So you are right in that your driver will wait for forever for a
>> disconnect() to happen, as it will never be called. I don't understand
>> the problem that this is causing when it happens. What's wrong with
>> udlfb that having the cpu suddently reset as the powerdown happened
>> without it knowing about it?
>
> There is nothing wrong with that. I've just explained why a problem
> doesn't occur on shutdown but on disconnect (of the device).
Maybe my explanation before was just to long and I try to explain it a
bit shorter:
If a device gets disconnected, the disconnect in udlfb might wait
forever in down_interruptible() (because it waits for an urb it never
receives). This even prevents a shutdown afterwards, because that
down_interruptible() never receives a signal (at shutdown, because
kernel threads don't get such).
So the change from down_timeout() to down_interruptible() in
dlfb_free_urb_list() with commit
33077b8d3042e01da61924973e372abe589ba297 only results in that the
following code (thus the break there) will never be reached if an urb
got missed (because of a disconnect).
And the accompanying comment (... at shutdown) is misleading, because on
shutdown, the kernel thread which calls dlfb_free_urb_list() never gets
a signal, so the interruption just never happens.
As I've experienced the "missing urb on disconnect" problem quiet often,
I've changed that down_interruptible() to down_timeout() (in v1 and in
v2 to down_timeout_interruptible, because I wasn't aware that no signal
arrives on shutdown).
Hmm, ok, that explanation isn't much shorter. ;)
Regards,
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-04 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-12 13:20 [PATCH] fb: udlfb: fix hang at disconnect Alexander Holler
2013-01-12 13:20 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-12 22:22 ` Bernie Thompson
2013-01-12 22:22 ` Bernie Thompson
2013-01-13 12:05 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-13 12:05 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-13 12:24 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-13 12:24 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-25 18:49 ` [PATCH 1/3] semaphore: introduce down_timeout_killable() Alexander Holler
2013-01-25 18:49 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-25 18:49 ` [PATCH 2/3 v2] fb: udlfb: fix hang at disconnect Alexander Holler
2013-01-25 18:49 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 0:22 ` Andrew Morton
2013-01-29 0:22 ` Andrew Morton
2013-01-29 0:56 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 0:56 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 10:35 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 10:35 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 11:11 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 11:11 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 15:51 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 15:51 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 20:35 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 20:35 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 20:56 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-29 20:56 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-04 1:14 ` Greg KH
2013-02-04 1:14 ` Greg KH
2013-02-04 12:05 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-04 12:05 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-04 19:17 ` Alexander Holler [this message]
2013-02-04 19:17 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-04 19:25 ` Greg KH
2013-02-04 19:25 ` Greg KH
2013-02-05 7:08 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-05 7:08 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-05 17:22 ` Greg KH
2013-02-05 17:22 ` Greg KH
2013-02-05 17:36 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-05 17:36 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-08 4:07 ` Dave Airlie
2013-02-08 4:07 ` Dave Airlie
2013-02-08 9:53 ` Alexander Holler
2013-02-08 9:53 ` Alexander Holler
2013-01-25 18:49 ` [PATCH 3/3] fb: smscufx: " Alexander Holler
2013-01-25 18:49 ` Alexander Holler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51100930.6080405@ahsoftware.de \
--to=holler@ahsoftware.de \
--cc=FlorianSchandinat@gmx.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bernie@plugable.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steve.glendinning@shawell.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.