Re: [PATCH 3/6] UBI: Fastmap: Ensure that all fastmap work is done upon WL shutdown

[Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>]

On 11/27/2014 5:38 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 14:20 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> ...otherwise the deferred work might run after datastructures
>> got freed and corrupt memory.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
>> ---
>>   drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c
>> index 7f135df..cb2e571 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c
>> @@ -2041,6 +2041,9 @@ static void protection_queue_destroy(struct ubi_device *ubi)
>>   void ubi_wl_close(struct ubi_device *ubi)
>>   {
>>   	dbg_wl("close the WL sub-system");
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_UBI_FASTMAP
>> +	flush_work(&ubi->fm_work);
>> +#endif
>
> If you are using the work infrastructure implemented in wl.c, then
> fastmap work should be no different to any other work. And we do flush
> all works in 'shutdown_work()'. The fastmap work should be flushed there
> too.

I tend to agree with Artem. Could you please move it to shutdown_work()? 
I'm asking because I do want to pick up all the bug fixes patches, but 
not going to pick up the "cleaning up" patches at this point.

>
> I think we discussed this already - there should be one single queue of
> works, managed by the same set of functions, all flushed in the same
> place, one-by-one...
>
> Obviously, there is some misunderstanding. This looks like lack of
> separation and misuse of layering. I am missing explanations why I am
> wrong...
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
>


Thanks,
Tanya Brokhman
-- 
Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project