On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Nathan Lynch <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 11:18 -0700, Bryan Wu wrote:
>> @@ -117,14 +117,14 @@ static int __init ledtrig_cpu_init(void)
>> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> struct led_trigger_cpu *trig = &per_cpu(cpu_trig, cpu);
>>
>> - mutex_init(&trig->lock);
>> + spin_lock_init(&trig->lock);
>>
>> snprintf(trig->name, MAX_NAME_LEN, "cpu%d", cpu);
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&trig->lock);
>> + spin_lock(&trig->lock);
>> led_trigger_register_simple(trig->name, &trig->_trig);
>> trig->lock_is_inited = 1;
>> - mutex_unlock(&trig->lock);
>> + spin_unlock(&trig->lock);
>
> I wouldn't know how to fix the original problem, but I don't think this
> patch is okay -- led_trigger_register_simple() does things that
> potentially sleep (GFP_KERNEL allocation, down_write), so it's not safe
> to call while holding a spinlock.
>
Looks like we got a hard issue, since led_trigger_register() families
and even led_trigger_event() might use rwsem for locking, these are
all potentially sleep, which are not easy to modified for atomic
context.
Any hints are welcome.
Thanks,
-Bryan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
