LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: postpone hci_dev unregistration
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 08:41:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1178260913.25425.27.camel@violet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705021144291.21227@twin.jikos.cz>
Hi Jiri,
> (I sent this a week ago but it seems to have got lost in other noise,
> resending)
>
> From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
>
> Bluetooth: postpone hci_dev unregistration
>
> Commit b40df57 substituted bh_lock_sock() in hci_sock_dev_event() for
> lock_sock() when unregistering HCI device, in order to prevent deadlock
> against locking in l2cap_connect_cfm() from softirq context.
>
> This however introduces another problem - hci_sock_dev_event() for
> HCI_DEV_UNREG can also be triggered in atomic context, in which calling
> lock_sock() is not safe as it could sleep. Reported by Jeremy Fitzhardinge
> at http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/23/271
>
> This patch moves the detaching of sockets from hci_device into workqueue,
> so that lock_sock() can be used safely. This requires movement of
> deallocation of hci_dev - deallocating device just after
> hci_unregister_dev() would be too soon, as it could happen before the
> workqueue has been run.
I saw the report on LKML, but I am not really comfortable with this
approach. It feels like an ugly hack. This needs more thinking and I
think that simplifying the looking between HCI and L2CAP should be the
goal.
Regards
Marcel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-04 6:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-02 9:49 Jiri Kosina
2007-05-04 6:41 ` Marcel Holtmann [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1178260913.25425.27.camel@violet \
--to=marcel@holtmann.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--subject='Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: postpone hci_dev unregistration' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).