Hello,
On 30-03-20, 20:01, �̰��� wrote:
snd_soc_runtime_activate() and snd_soc_runtime_deactivate() require locked pcm_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Gyeongtaek Lee gt82.lee@samsung.com
sound/soc/soc-compress.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/sound/soc/soc-compress.c b/sound/soc/soc-compress.c index 392a1c5b15d3..42d416ac7e9b 100644 --- a/sound/soc/soc-compress.c +++ b/sound/soc/soc-compress.c @@ -207,7 +207,9 @@ static int soc_compr_open_fe(struct snd_compr_stream *cstream) fe->dpcm[stream].state = SND_SOC_DPCM_STATE_OPEN; fe->dpcm[stream].runtime_update = SND_SOC_DPCM_UPDATE_NO;
- mutex_lock_nested(&fe->pcm_mutex, fe->pcm_subclass); snd_soc_runtime_activate(fe, stream);
- mutex_unlock(&fe->pcm_mutex);
Can you please explain why you need the lock here, as
mutex_unlock(&fe->card->mutex);
we already have a lock here..
@@ -285,7 +287,9 @@ static int soc_compr_free_fe(struct snd_compr_stream *cstream) else stream = SNDRV_PCM_STREAM_CAPTURE;
- mutex_lock_nested(&fe->pcm_mutex, fe->pcm_subclass); snd_soc_runtime_deactivate(fe, stream);
- mutex_unlock(&fe->pcm_mutex);
And this instance is also using fe->card->mutex.. so I think double lock may not serve any purpose here..
Can you explain why we need the extra lock?
Thanks