Hi,

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 01:12:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:

The spin_lock/unlock_irq() functions cannot be nested. The problem is that presumably we would want the IRQs to be re-enabled on the second call the spin_unlock_irq() but instead it will be enabled at the first call so IRQs will be enabled earlier than expected.

In this situation the copy_resp_to_buf() function is only called from one function and it is called with IRQs disabled. We can just use the regular spin_lock/unlock() functions.

Fixes: 555e8a8f7f14 ("ALSA: fireworks: Add command/response functionality into hwdep interface") Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter dan.carpenter@oracle.com

---

sound/firewire/fireworks/fireworks_transaction.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Indeed. It's bad to use the two pairs by nesting. Thanks for the patch and your care.

Acked-by: Takashi Sakamoto o-takashi@sakamocchi.jp

diff --git a/sound/firewire/fireworks/fireworks_transaction.c b/sound/firewire/fireworks/fireworks_transaction.c index 0f533f5bd960..9f8c53b39f95 100644 --- a/sound/firewire/fireworks/fireworks_transaction.c +++ b/sound/firewire/fireworks/fireworks_transaction.c @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ copy_resp_to_buf(struct snd_efw *efw, void *data, size_t length, int *rcode) t = (struct snd_efw_transaction *)data; length = min_t(size_t, be32_to_cpu(t->length) * sizeof(u32), length);

• spin_lock_irq(&efw->lock);

• spin_lock(&efw->lock);

  if (efw->push_ptr < efw->pull_ptr) capacity = (unsigned int)(efw->pull_ptr - efw->push_ptr);

@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ handle_resp_for_user(struct fw_card *card, int generation, int source,

copy_resp_to_buf(efw, data, length, rcode); end:

• spin_unlock_irq(&instances_lock);

• spin_unlock(&instances_lock);

}

static void

2.28.0

Regards

Takashi Sakamoto