Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:43:32 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Bartosz Fabianowski <freebsd@chillt.de> Subject: Re: Is there some implicit locking of device methods? Message-ID: <201104261143.32591.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201104261642.17569.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <4DB695DB.1080505@chillt.de> <201104261037.17893.jhb@freebsd.org> <201104261642.17569.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:42:17 am Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On Tuesday 26 April 2011 16:37:17 John Baldwin wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:27:14 am Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:42 AM, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > - The Giant protection for new-bus should prevent attach/detach from > > > > running > > > > > > > > concurrently I believe (either that or the USB bus itself should > > > > ensure that the two instances of your device have seperate device_t > > > > instances with separate softc's, so current attach/detach should not > > > > matter except that they may both try to talk to the same hardware > > > > perhaps? In that case that is something the USB bus driver should > > > > fix by prevent a device from attaching at an existing address until > > > > any existing device at that address is fully detached). > > > > > > I thought that if we held Giant when we're about to go to sleep that we > > > drop it as a special case. So if any newbus-releated function sleeps, > > > we can have a situation where attach is running and detach gets called. > > > There is (or was) some code to cope with this in CardBus, iirc. I'm > > > surprised there isn't any in USB, since Hans was the one that alerted me > > > to this issue. > > > > Yes, Giant doesn't really provide too much help here. However, the real > > fix should be in the USB bus, and USB peripheral drivers should not have > > to worry about handling concurrent attach/detach (they can't really handle > > it safely anyway). > > Hi, > > All detach/attach/suspend/resume functions on a device tree belonging to the > same USB controller are executed from a single thread, which is called the > root HUB thread. Ok, that should work fine then to serialize the detach and attach. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201104261143.32591.jhb>