[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210913133915.GA1414@agape.jhs>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 15:39:16 +0200
From: Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@...il.com>
To: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rtl8723bs: protect sleepq_len access by
sleep_q.lock
Hello Hans,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 03:24:44PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> > Note that sleep_q.lock is already taken inside
> > rtw_free_xmitframe_queue so we just wrap sleepq_len
> > access.
> >
> > Moved pxmitpriv->lock after sleep_q.lock release to
> > avoid locks nesting.
> > rtw_free_xmitframe_queue(pxmitpriv, &psta->sleep_q);
> > + spin_lock_bh(&psta->sleep_q.lock);
>
> AFAICT this needs to be above the rtw_free_xmitframe_queue() ?
as I wrote on the changelog, the sleep_q.lock is already
taken inside rtw_free_xmitframe_queue. If I put the
sleep_q.lock above that function a soft lock occurs when
I disconnect.
So I put it just below rtw_free_xmitframe_queue.
Things works fine this way.
Please tell me if there's a best way to do it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
thank you,
fabio
Powered by blists - more mailing lists