Re: [RESEND][PATCH-2.6.24-rc8] Fix fakephp deadlock

[Ian Abbott]

On 23/01/08 17:46, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:28:08PM +0000, Ian Abbott wrote:
> > #include <linux/init.h>
> > #include <linux/string.h>
> > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> > #include "../pci.h"
> > #if !defined(MODULE)
> > @@ -63,10 +64,13 @@ struct dummy_slot {
> > 	struct list_head node;
> > 	struct hotplug_slot *slot;
> > 	struct pci_dev *dev;
> > +	struct work_struct remove_work;
> > +	unsigned long removed;
>
> You are treating "removed" as an atomic value, so why not just make it
> an atomic_t?

Because I'm using it as a boolean?

> And what is protecting the fact that the flag could be set right after
> it gets checked?  I don't see a lock here :)

Okay, it looks like there might be a race condition between 
enable_slot() and disable_slot() if some other task calls disable_slot() 
while enable_slot() is between the test_bit() and flush_workqueue() 
calls.  I can fix that by avoiding the call to flush_workqueue() in 
enable_slot() and allocating and queueing a work queue item to defer the 
call to pci_rescan().  And enable_slot() won't then need to check if the 
slot was marked as removed - it can just go ahead and allocate and queue 
a work item.

--
-=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd.    E-mail: <abbotti@xxxxxxxxx>        )=-
-=( Tel: +44 (0)161 477 1898   FAX: +44 (0)161 718 3587         )=-
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/