From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@gmx.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: pwm-beeper - fix: scheduling while atomic
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 10:54:52 +0200
Message-ID: <57480B5C.7080409@gmx.at>
References: <56C4735E.6020300@gmx.at> <20160222194639.GD26177@dtor-ws>
 <20160512121852.GB26824@ulmo.ba.sec> <5735F4E3.20008@gmx.at>
 <573C8761.9070601@gmx.at> <20160520165918.GE14951@dtor-ws>
 <574411B5.2010407@gmx.at> <20160526003615.GE22369@dtor-ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160526003615.GE22369@dtor-ws>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, Manfred Schlaegl <manfred.schlaegl@ginzinger.com>, Luis de Bethencourt <luis@debethencourt.com>, Olivier Sobrie <olivier@sobrie.be>, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org

On 2016-05-26 02:36, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Manfred Schlaegl wrote:
>> On 2016-05-20 18:59, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> Hi Manfred,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:16:49PM +0200, Manfred Schlaegl wrote:
>>>> @@ -133,6 +149,8 @@ static int pwm_beeper_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	struct pwm_beeper *beeper = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>>>  
>>>> +	cancel_work_sync(&beeper->work);
>>>> +
>>>>  	input_unregister_device(beeper->input);
>>>
>>> This is racy, request to play may come in after cancel_work_sync()
>>> returns but before we unregistered input device. I think you want the
>>> version below.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> yes you are right. Thank you for your feedback.
>> I also see that point, but I think it would be a simpler change just
>> to cancel the worker after unregistering the device (to reorder 
>> cancel_work_sync and input_unregister_device).
> 
> That is an option, but I wanter to have close() because I also want to
> convert the driver to used devm for allocating resources, and then we'd
> need close() anyway so that we can get rid of remove() method.
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Ok. Thanks for clarification.
I will send a patch with the modifications you suggested before.

The following patch will also have some slight modifications in line numbers to make it apply after
cfae56f18 (input: misc: pwm-beeper: Explicitly apply PWM config extracted from pwm_args).

best regards,
Manfred