From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ulf.hansson@stericsson.com (Ulf Hansson) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:37:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] mmc: mmci: Do not release spinlock in request_end In-Reply-To: <1318521592.2090.16.camel@linaro1> References: <1318342001-26955-1-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@stericsson.com> <20111013142914.GZ21648@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1318521592.2090.16.camel@linaro1> Message-ID: <4E97E6CF.1000601@stericsson.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 15:29 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 04:06:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> The patch "mmc: core: move ->request() call from atomic context", >>> is the reason to why this change is possible. This simplifies the >>> error handling code execution path quite a lot and potentially also >>> fixes some error handling hang problems. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson >> This doesn't look right: >> >> void mmc_request_done(struct mmc_host *host, struct mmc_request *mrq) >> { >> if (err && cmd->retries) { >> host->ops->request(host, mrq); >> This is NOT how it looks at mmc-next. You need to test with Adrian Hunters patch which the commit refers two. Linux next for mmc is available at: git://dev.laptop.org/users/cjb/mmc mmc-next >> So, not dropping the spinlock results in calling the request function >> with the spinlock held - and as the request function then goes on to >> lock the spinlock, we will deadlock. > > Indeed, deadlock behaviour at this point is what I see with this patch > on a Versatile Express board running 3.0-rc9. >