From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: tsc2005: fix locking issue Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:19:58 -0700 Message-ID: <20110322061958.GA7990@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1300724650-6641-1-git-send-email-aaro.koskinen@nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:51748 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754048Ab1CVGUE (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:20:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1300724650-6641-1-git-send-email-aaro.koskinen@nokia.com> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Aaro Koskinen Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 06:24:10PM +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > Commit 0b950d3 (Input: tsc2005 - add open/close) introduced a > locking issue with the ESD watchdog: __tsc2005_disable() is calling > cancel_delayed_work_sync() with mutex held, and the work also needs the > same mutex. > > Fix the problem by using cancel_delayed_work() on disable. If > the ESD work was running it will check if the device is closed > or suspended, and in that case it will do nothing and skip > re-arming. cancel_delayed_work_sync() is still needed when the module > is removed. Hmm, indeed. However, instead of moving cancel_delayed_work_sync() to remove maybe we should use mutex_trylock() in tsc2005_esd_work()? If trylock fails that means that device is in the middle of open/close transition. We should just reschedule the work and get out of there. Thanks. -- Dmitry