1. 01 11月, 2011 3 次提交
  2. 22 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  3. 17 10月, 2011 2 次提交
  4. 15 10月, 2011 1 次提交
    • P
      PCI hotplug: acpiphp: Prevent deadlock on PCI-to-PCI bridge remove · 6af8bef1
      Prarit Bhargava 提交于
      I originally submitted a patch to workaround this by pushing all Ejection
      Requests and Device Checks onto the kacpi_hotplug queue.
      
      http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=131678270930105&w=2
      
      The patch is still insufficient in that Bus Checks also need to be added.
      
      Rather than add all events, including non-PCI-hotplug events, to the
      hotplug queue, mjg suggested that a better approach would be to modify
      the acpiphp driver so only acpiphp events would be added to the
      kacpi_hotplug queue.
      
      It's a longer patch, but at least we maintain the benefit of having separate
      queues in ACPI.  This, of course, is still only a workaround the problem.
      As Bjorn and mjg pointed out, we have to refactor a lot of this code to do
      the right thing but at this point it is a better to have this code working.
      
      The acpi core places all events on the kacpi_notify queue.  When the acpiphp
      driver is loaded and a PCI card with a PCI-to-PCI bridge is removed the
      following call sequence occurs:
      
      cleanup_p2p_bridge()
      	    -> cleanup_bridge()
      		    -> acpi_remove_notify_handler()
      			    -> acpi_os_wait_events_complete()
      				    -> flush_workqueue(kacpi_notify_wq)
      
      which is the queue we are currently executing on and the process will hang.
      
      Move all hotplug acpiphp events onto the kacpi_hotplug workqueue.  In
      handle_hotplug_event_bridge() and handle_hotplug_event_func() we can simply
      push the rest of the work onto the kacpi_hotplug queue and then avoid the
      deadlock.
      Signed-off-by: NPrarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
      Cc: mjg@redhat.com
      Cc: bhelgaas@google.com
      Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
      Signed-off-by: NJesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
      6af8bef1
  5. 10 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  6. 04 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  7. 13 9月, 2011 1 次提交
  8. 30 8月, 2011 1 次提交
  9. 25 8月, 2011 1 次提交
  10. 12 8月, 2011 2 次提交
  11. 06 8月, 2011 1 次提交
    • S
      Battery: sysfs_remove_battery(): possible circular locking · 69d94ec6
      Sergey Senozhatsky 提交于
      Commit 9c921c22
      Author: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
      
          ACPI / Battery: Resolve the race condition in the sysfs_remove_battery()
      
      fixed BUG https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35642 , but as a side
      effect made lockdep unhappy with sysfs_remove_battery():
      
      [14818.477168]
      [14818.477170] =======================================================
      [14818.477200] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
      [14818.477221] 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668
      [14818.477236] -------------------------------------------------------
      [14818.477257] s2ram/1599 is trying to acquire lock:
      [14818.477276]  (s_active#8){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
      [14818.477323]
      [14818.477325] but task is already holding lock:
      [14818.477350]  (&battery->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0047278>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x10/0x4b [battery]
      [14818.477395]
      [14818.477397] which lock already depends on the new lock.
      [14818.477399]
      [..]
      [14818.479121] stack backtrace:
      [14818.479148] Pid: 1599, comm: s2ram Not tainted 3.1.0-dbg-07865-g1280ea8-dirty #668
      [14818.479175] Call Trace:
      [14818.479198]  [<ffffffff814828c3>] print_circular_bug+0x293/0x2a4
      [14818.479228]  [<ffffffff81070cb5>] __lock_acquire+0xfe4/0x164b
      [14818.479260]  [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
      [14818.479288]  [<ffffffff810718d2>] lock_acquire+0x138/0x1ac
      [14818.479316]  [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
      [14818.479345]  [<ffffffff81168a79>] sysfs_deactivate+0x9b/0xec
      [14818.479373]  [<ffffffff81169147>] ? sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
      [14818.479405]  [<ffffffff81169147>] sysfs_addrm_finish+0x31/0x5a
      [14818.479433]  [<ffffffff81167bc5>] sysfs_hash_and_remove+0x54/0x77
      [14818.479461]  [<ffffffff811681b9>] sysfs_remove_file+0x12/0x14
      [14818.479488]  [<ffffffff81385bf8>] device_remove_file+0x12/0x14
      [14818.479516]  [<ffffffff81386504>] device_del+0x119/0x17c
      [14818.479542]  [<ffffffff81386575>] device_unregister+0xe/0x1a
      [14818.479570]  [<ffffffff813c6ef9>] power_supply_unregister+0x23/0x27
      [14818.479601]  [<ffffffffa004729c>] sysfs_remove_battery+0x34/0x4b [battery]
      [14818.479632]  [<ffffffffa004778f>] battery_notify+0x2c/0x3a [battery]
      [14818.479662]  [<ffffffff8148fe82>] notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xa1
      [14818.479692]  [<ffffffff810624b4>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x6c/0x89
      [14818.479722]  [<ffffffff810624e0>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0xf/0x11
      [14818.479751]  [<ffffffff8107e40e>] pm_notifier_call_chain+0x15/0x27
      [14818.479770]  [<ffffffff8107ee1a>] enter_state+0xa7/0xd5
      [14818.479782]  [<ffffffff8107e341>] state_store+0xaa/0xc0
      [14818.479795]  [<ffffffff8107e297>] ? pm_async_store+0x45/0x45
      [14818.479807]  [<ffffffff81248837>] kobj_attr_store+0x17/0x19
      [14818.479820]  [<ffffffff81167e27>] sysfs_write_file+0x103/0x13f
      [14818.479834]  [<ffffffff81109037>] vfs_write+0xad/0x13d
      [14818.479847]  [<ffffffff811092b2>] sys_write+0x45/0x6c
      [14818.479860]  [<ffffffff81492f92>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
      
      This patch introduces separate lock to struct acpi_battery to
      grab in sysfs_remove_battery() instead of battery->lock.
      So fix by Lan Tianyu is still there, we just grab independent lock.
      Signed-off-by: NSergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
      Tested-by: NLan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@intel.com>
      Signed-off-by: NLen Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
      69d94ec6
  12. 03 8月, 2011 7 次提交
  13. 02 8月, 2011 1 次提交
  14. 30 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  15. 23 7月, 2011 3 次提交
  16. 21 7月, 2011 1 次提交
    • P
      treewide: fix potentially dangerous trailing ';' in #defined values/expressions · 497888cf
      Phil Carmody 提交于
      All these are instances of
        #define NAME value;
      or
        #define NAME(params_opt) value;
      
      These of course fail to build when used in contexts like
        if(foo $OP NAME)
        while(bar $OP NAME)
      and may silently generate the wrong code in contexts such as
        foo = NAME + 1;    /* foo = value; + 1; */
        bar = NAME - 1;    /* bar = value; - 1; */
        baz = NAME & quux; /* baz = value; & quux; */
      
      Reported on comp.lang.c,
      Message-ID: <ab0d55fe-25e5-482b-811e-c475aa6065c3@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
      Initial analysis of the dangers provided by Keith Thompson in that thread.
      
      There are many more instances of more complicated macros having unnecessary
      trailing semicolons, but this pile seems to be all of the cases of simple
      values suffering from the problem. (Thus things that are likely to be found
      in one of the contexts above, more complicated ones aren't.)
      Signed-off-by: NPhil Carmody <ext-phil.2.carmody@nokia.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
      497888cf
  17. 17 7月, 2011 5 次提交
  18. 14 7月, 2011 7 次提交