Commit 0765cbd3 authored by Stefan Richter's avatar Stefan Richter

firewire: sbp2: protect a reference counter properly

The assertion in the comment in sbp2_allow_block() is no longer true.
Or maybe it never was true.  At least now, the sole caller of
sbp2_allow_block(), sbp2_login, can run concurrently to one of
sbp2_unblock()'s callers, sbp2_remove.

sbp2_login is performed by sbp2_logical_unit.work.
sbp2_remove is performed by fw_device.work.
sbp2_remove cancels sbp2_logical_unit.work, but only after it called
sbp2_unblock.
Signed-off-by: default avatarStefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
parent 0238507b
...@@ -689,14 +689,12 @@ static void sbp2_agent_reset_no_wait(struct sbp2_logical_unit *lu) ...@@ -689,14 +689,12 @@ static void sbp2_agent_reset_no_wait(struct sbp2_logical_unit *lu)
static inline void sbp2_allow_block(struct sbp2_logical_unit *lu) static inline void sbp2_allow_block(struct sbp2_logical_unit *lu)
{ {
/* struct sbp2_target *tgt = lu->tgt;
* We may access dont_block without taking card->lock here: struct fw_card *card = target_parent_device(tgt)->card;
* All callers of sbp2_allow_block() and all callers of sbp2_unblock()
* are currently serialized against each other. spin_lock_irq(&card->lock);
* And a wrong result in sbp2_conditionally_block()'s access of --tgt->dont_block;
* dont_block is rather harmless, it simply misses its first chance. spin_unlock_irq(&card->lock);
*/
--lu->tgt->dont_block;
} }
/* /*
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment