Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: Fix crash in gpiod_set_debounce()

[Kevin Hilman]

[+Olof who had mentioned lock recursion BUG in -next]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Return an error if neither the ->set() nor the ->set_debounce() function
>> is implemented by the chip. Furthermore move locking further down so the
>> lock doesn't have to be unlocked on error. This is safe to do because at
>> this point the lock doesn't protect anything.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Linus,
>>
>> Feel free to squash this into the commit that introduced these:
>>
>>         fc9bbfb: gpio: improve error path in gpiolib
>
> Hm I fixed part of this bug yesterday, but screwed up and left the dangling
> spinlock in there, what is wrong with me :-(
>
> Anyway, fixed it _finally_ now, thanks to you.

Exiting without unlocking was causing a lock recurision lockup in
next-20130903 on exynos5/arndale.  I just verified that moving the
spinlock down as propsed here fixes the problem in -next.

Thanks,

Kevin
--
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/