Hi Shimoda-san,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:30 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
<[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Phong Hoang <[email protected]>
>
> This patch fixes deadlock warning if removing PWM device
> when CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING is enabled.
>
> This issue can be reproceduced by the following steps on
> the R-Car H3 Salvator-X board if the backlight is disabled:
>
> # cd /sys/class/pwm/pwmchip0
> # echo 0 > export
> # ls
> device export npwm power pwm0 subsystem uevent unexport
> # cd device/driver
> # ls
> bind e6e31000.pwm uevent unbind
> # echo e6e31000.pwm > unbind
[...]
> The sysfs unexport in pwmchip_remove() is completely asymmetric
> to what we do in pwmchip_add_with_polarity() and commit 0733424c9ba9
> ("pwm: Unexport children before chip removal") is a strong indication
> that this was wrong to begin with. We should just move
> pwmchip_sysfs_unexport() where it belongs, which is right after
> pwmchip_sysfs_unexport_children(). In that case, we do not need
> separate functions anymore either.
>
> We also really want to remove sysfs irrespective of whether or not
> the chip will be removed as a result of pwmchip_remove(). We can only
> assume that the driver will be gone after that, so we shouldn't leave
> any dangling sysfs files around.
>
> This warning disappears if we move pwmchip_sysfs_unexport() to
> the top of pwmchip_remove(), right below pwmchip_sysfs_unexport_children().
Drop the "right below..." part, as pwmchip_sysfs_unexport_children() is gone?
> That way it is also outside of the pwm_lock section, which indeed
> doesn't seem to be needed.
>
> Moving the pwmchip_sysfs_export() call outside of that section also
> seems fine and it'd be perfectly symmetric with pwmchip_remove() again.
>
> So, this patch fixes them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Phong Hoang <[email protected]>
> [shimoda: revise the commit log and code]
> Fixes: 76abbdde2d95 ("pwm: Add sysfs interface")
> Fixes: 0733424c9ba9 ("pwm: Unexport children before chip removal")
> Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Hoan Nguyen An <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes from v1 (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10848567/):
> - Change the subject from "Avoid" to "Fix".
> - Merge pwmchip_sysfs_unexport_children()'s code into
> pwmchip_sysfs_unexport() and move pwmchip_sysfs_unexport() to
> the top of pwmchip_remove().
> - Revise the commit log that is reffered from Therry's comments [1]
> because it seems very clear to me.
> - Add Fixes tag about the commit 0733424c9ba9.
> - I got Geert's Reviewed-by on v1 patch, but I'm not sure
> I can add the Reviewed-by because v2 patch changes a bit.
> So, I didn't add the Reviewed-by tag.
Thanks for the update!
Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c
> --- a/drivers/pwm/sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/pwm/sysfs.c
> @@ -411,36 +411,24 @@ void pwmchip_sysfs_export(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> void pwmchip_sysfs_unexport(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> {
> struct device *parent;
> + unsigned int i;
>
> parent = class_find_device(&pwm_class, NULL, chip,
> pwmchip_sysfs_match);
> if (parent) {
Perhaps "if (!parent) return", like pwmchip_sysfs_unexport_children()
used to do?
That way the reviewer has less context to store, indentation is
decreased, and the resulting diff may be smaller.
> + for (i = 0; i < chip->npwm; i++) {
> + struct pwm_device *pwm = &chip->pwms[i];
> +
> + if (test_bit(PWMF_EXPORTED, &pwm->flags))
> + pwm_unexport_child(parent, pwm);
> + }
> +
> /* for class_find_device() */
> put_device(parent);
> device_unregister(parent);
> }
> }
>
> -void pwmchip_sysfs_unexport_children(struct pwm_chip *chip)
> -{
> - struct device *parent;
> - unsigned int i;
> -
> - parent = class_find_device(&pwm_class, NULL, chip,
> - pwmchip_sysfs_match);
> - if (!parent)
> - return;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < chip->npwm; i++) {
> - struct pwm_device *pwm = &chip->pwms[i];
> -
> - if (test_bit(PWMF_EXPORTED, &pwm->flags))
> - pwm_unexport_child(parent, pwm);
> - }
> -
> - put_device(parent);
> -}
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
