| Message ID | 20240527-xdma-fixes-v1-1-f31434b56842@bootlin.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 462237d2d93fc9e9221d1cf9f773954d27da83c0 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dmaengine: xilinx: xdma: Fixes possible threading issue | expand |
> The current interrupt handler in xdma.c was using xdma->stop_request > before locking the vchan lock. 1. Will an additional imperative wording become helpful here? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10-rc1#n94 2. How do you think about to use the summary phrase “Fix data synchronisation in xdma_channel_isr()”? 3. Will development interests grow for the usage of a statement like “guard(spin)(&xchan->vchan.lock);”? https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L124 Regards, Markus
Le 27/05/24 - 20:32, Markus Elfring a écrit : > > The current interrupt handler in xdma.c was using xdma->stop_request > > before locking the vchan lock. > > 1. Will an additional imperative wording become helpful here? > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.10-rc1#n94 > > 2. How do you think about to use the summary phrase “Fix data synchronisation in xdma_channel_isr()”? I changed the commit message and summary in the v2. > 3. Will development interests grow for the usage of a statement like “guard(spin)(&xchan->vchan.lock);”? > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10-rc1/source/include/linux/cleanup.h#L124 I don't feel comfortable switching `guard` as the rest of the driver is not using it yet. Since this is a fix, I prefer to maintain consistency with the style of the rest of the driver. Thanks, Louis Chauvet > > Regards, > Markus >
diff --git a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xdma.c b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xdma.c index e143a7330816..718842fdaf98 100644 --- a/drivers/dma/xilinx/xdma.c +++ b/drivers/dma/xilinx/xdma.c @@ -885,11 +885,11 @@ static irqreturn_t xdma_channel_isr(int irq, void *dev_id) u32 st; bool repeat_tx; + spin_lock(&xchan->vchan.lock); + if (xchan->stop_requested) complete(&xchan->last_interrupt); - spin_lock(&xchan->vchan.lock); - /* get submitted request */ vd = vchan_next_desc(&xchan->vchan); if (!vd)
The current interrupt handler in xdma.c was using xdma->stop_request before locking the vchan lock. Fixes: 6a40fb824596 ("dmaengine: xilinx: xdma: Fix synchronization issue") Signed-off-by: Louis Chauvet <louis.chauvet@bootlin.com> --- drivers/dma/xilinx/xdma.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- base-commit: 1613e604df0cd359cf2a7fbd9be7a0bcfacfabd0 change-id: 20240527-xdma-fixes-74bbe2dcbeb8 Best regards,