mtd: change struct flchip_shared spinlock locking into mutex
This patch prevent to schedule while atomic by changing the flchip_shared spinlock into a mutex. This should be save since no atomic path will use this lock. It was suggested by Arnd Bergmann and Vasiliy Kulikov. Signed-off-by: Stefani Seibold <stefani@seibold.net> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
This commit is contained in:
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ static int cfi_intelext_partition_fixup(struct mtd_info *mtd,
|
||||
chip = &newcfi->chips[0];
|
||||
for (i = 0; i < cfi->numchips; i++) {
|
||||
shared[i].writing = shared[i].erasing = NULL;
|
||||
spin_lock_init(&shared[i].lock);
|
||||
mutex_init(&shared[i].lock);
|
||||
for (j = 0; j < numparts; j++) {
|
||||
*chip = cfi->chips[i];
|
||||
chip->start += j << partshift;
|
||||
@@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ static int get_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long adr
|
||||
*/
|
||||
struct flchip_shared *shared = chip->priv;
|
||||
struct flchip *contender;
|
||||
spin_lock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_lock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
contender = shared->writing;
|
||||
if (contender && contender != chip) {
|
||||
/*
|
||||
@@ -902,7 +902,7 @@ static int get_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long adr
|
||||
* get_chip returns success we're clear to go ahead.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
ret = mutex_trylock(&contender->mutex);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
if (!ret)
|
||||
goto retry;
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
|
||||
@@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ static int get_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long adr
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&contender->mutex);
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
}
|
||||
spin_lock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_lock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
|
||||
/* We should not own chip if it is already
|
||||
* in FL_SYNCING state. Put contender and retry. */
|
||||
@@ -933,7 +933,7 @@ static int get_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long adr
|
||||
* on this chip. Sleep. */
|
||||
if (mode == FL_ERASING && shared->erasing
|
||||
&& shared->erasing->oldstate == FL_ERASING) {
|
||||
spin_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
|
||||
add_wait_queue(&chip->wq, &wait);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
|
||||
@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ static int get_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long adr
|
||||
shared->writing = chip;
|
||||
if (mode == FL_ERASING)
|
||||
shared->erasing = chip;
|
||||
spin_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
ret = chip_ready(map, chip, adr, mode);
|
||||
if (ret == -EAGAIN)
|
||||
@@ -962,7 +962,7 @@ static void put_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long ad
|
||||
|
||||
if (chip->priv) {
|
||||
struct flchip_shared *shared = chip->priv;
|
||||
spin_lock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_lock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
if (shared->writing == chip && chip->oldstate == FL_READY) {
|
||||
/* We own the ability to write, but we're done */
|
||||
shared->writing = shared->erasing;
|
||||
@@ -970,7 +970,7 @@ static void put_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long ad
|
||||
/* give back ownership to who we loaned it from */
|
||||
struct flchip *loaner = shared->writing;
|
||||
mutex_lock(&loaner->mutex);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
|
||||
put_chip(map, loaner, loaner->start);
|
||||
mutex_lock(&chip->mutex);
|
||||
@@ -988,11 +988,11 @@ static void put_chip(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip, unsigned long ad
|
||||
* Don't let the switch below mess things up since
|
||||
* we don't have ownership to resume anything.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
spin_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
wake_up(&chip->wq);
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
spin_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&shared->lock);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
switch(chip->oldstate) {
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user