Re: [PATCH V3 2/7] dmaengine/dw_dmac: Replace spin_lock* withirqsave variants

From: Russell King - ARM Linux
Date: Thu Apr 28 2011 - 13:10:43 EST


On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:06:44PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> @@ -407,6 +410,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dw_dma_get_dst_addr);
> static void dwc_handle_cyclic(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc,
> u32 status_block, u32 status_err, u32 status_xfer)
> {
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> if (status_block & dwc->mask) {
> void (*callback)(void *param);
> void *callback_param;
> @@ -418,9 +423,9 @@ static void dwc_handle_cyclic(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc,
> callback = dwc->cdesc->period_callback;
> callback_param = dwc->cdesc->period_callback_param;
> if (callback) {
> - spin_unlock(&dwc->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dwc->lock, flags);
> callback(callback_param);
> - spin_lock(&dwc->lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dwc->lock, flags);

I'm really not convinced that this is anywhere near correct. I'm
surprised this doesn't spit out a compiler warning.

spin_unlock_irqrestore() reads the flags argument and puts it into
the PSR. spin_lock_irqsave() reads the PSR, puts it into the flags
argument, sets the interrupt mask bit and writes back to the PSR.

So, if you do:

unsigned long flags;

spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dwc->lock, flags);
...
spin_lock_irqsave(&dwc->lock, flags);

you're going to end up corrupting the PSR.

In any case, releasing a spinlock temporarily within a called function
is _really_ not a nice thing to do. It makes code review rather
difficult as called functions become non-atomic when called within
an atomic region.
--
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/