On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 Wei.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Yang Wei <Wei.Yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
While loading g_mass_storage module, the following warning is triggered.
In fact, it is more easy to reproduce it with RT kernel.
WARNING: at drivers/usb/gadget/composite.c:
usb_composite_setup_continue: Unexpected call
Modules linked in: fat vfat minix nls_cp437 nls_iso8859_1 g_mass_storage
[<800179cc>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x104) from [<80619608>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
[<80619608>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80025100>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x64/0x74)
[<80025100>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x64/0x74) from [<800251cc>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x40/0x48)
[<800251cc>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x40/0x48) from [<7f047774>] (usb_composite_setup_continue+0xb4/0xbc [g_mass_storage])
[<7f047774>] (usb_composite_setup_continue+0xb4/0xbc [g_mass_storage]) from [<7f047ad4>] (handle_exception+0x358/0x3e4 [g_mass_storage])
[<7f047ad4>] (handle_exception+0x358/0x3e4 [g_mass_storage]) from [<7f048080>] (fsg_main_thread+0x520/0x157c [g_mass_storage])
[<7f048080>] (fsg_main_thread+0x520/0x157c [g_mass_storage]) from [<8004bc90>] (kthread+0x98/0x9c)
[<8004bc90>] (kthread+0x98/0x9c) from [<8000faec>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
The root cause just likes the following scenario.
irq thread
composite_disconnect()
|
|->fsg_disable() fsg->common->new_fsg = NULL
and then wake fsg_main_thread
with seting common->state to
FSG_STATE_CONFIG_CHANGE.
fsg_main_thread
|
|->do_set_interface()
irq thread
set_config()
|
|->fsg_set_alt() fsg->common->new_fsg = new_fsg
and then also wake up fsg_main_thread
with setting common->state to
FSG_STATE_CONFIG_CHANGE.
|-> if(common->new_fsg)
usb_composite_setup_continue()
In this case, fsg_main_thread would invoke usb_composite_setup_continue
twice, so the second call would trigger the above call trace, as we also
save common->new_fsg while changing the common->state.
Michal and Andrzej:
I haven't paid much attention to these matters, because you handled the
conversion from g_file_storage to f_mass_storage using the composite
framework. But this patch seemed odd, so I took a closer look.
In f_mass_storage.c, struct fsg_common is shared among all the function
instances. This structure includes things like cmnd and nluns, which
will in general be different for different functions.
That's okay if each function is in a separate config, but what happens
when there are multiple functions in the same config, using different
interfaces? What if the host sends concurrent commands to two of these
functions?