| Message ID | 20150325203222.GA8845@dtor-ws (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:32:22PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Trying to register an SPI device asynchronously (via async_schedule() call) > results in an ugly complaint from request_module() warning about potential > deadlock (because request_module tries to wait for async works to > complete, the caller is also an async work in this case). Applied, thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c index c64a3e5..102a9e6 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c @@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ */ #include <linux/kernel.h> -#include <linux/kmod.h> #include <linux/device.h> #include <linux/init.h> #include <linux/cache.h> @@ -1359,7 +1358,6 @@ of_register_spi_device(struct spi_master *master, struct device_node *nc) spi->dev.of_node = nc; /* Register the new device */ - request_module("%s%s", SPI_MODULE_PREFIX, spi->modalias); rc = spi_add_device(spi); if (rc) { dev_err(&master->dev, "spi_device register error %s\n",
Trying to register an SPI device asynchronously (via async_schedule() call) results in an ugly complaint from request_module() warning about potential deadlock (because request_module tries to wait for async works to complete, the caller is also an async work in this case). While we could try to switch to using request_module_nowait(), other buses, as well as SPI itself when not using device tree, do not try to load modules explicitly, but rather rely on the standard infrastructure (such as udev) to execute module loading. There is no reason why SPI OF-described devices should be treated differently. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> --- Mark, I chatted with Grant who I believe added the code originally and he said he does not recall a good reason for it to actually be there. Thanks! drivers/spi/spi.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)