[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51ce4458-cf8c-6219-e945-3333226dbdcc@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 16:39:00 +0100
From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
To: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>
Cc: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] Bluetooth: use bitmap_empty to check if a bitmap
has any bits set
On 07/10/2021 16:34, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> Hi Colin,
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 4:17 AM Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>>
>> The check to see if any tasks are left checks if bitmap array is zero
>> rather than using the appropriate bitmap helper functions to check the
>> bits in the array. Fix this by using bitmap_empty on the bitmap.
>>
>> Addresses-Coverity: (" Array compared against 0")
>> Fixes: 912730b52552 ("Bluetooth: Fix wake up suspend_wait_q prematurely")
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>> ---
>> net/bluetooth/hci_request.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c
>> index 209f4fe17237..bad3b9c895ba 100644
>> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c
>> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_request.c
>> @@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ static void suspend_req_complete(struct hci_dev *hdev, u8 status, u16 opcode)
>> clear_bit(SUSPEND_SET_ADV_FILTER, hdev->suspend_tasks);
>>
>> /* Wake up only if there are no tasks left */
>> - if (!hdev->suspend_tasks)
>> + if (!bitmap_empty(hdev->suspend_tasks, __SUSPEND_NUM_TASKS))
>> wake_up(&hdev->suspend_wait_q);
>> }
>>
>> --
>> 2.32.0
>
> I was going to revert this change since it appears wake_up does
> actually check the wake condition there is no premature wake up after
> all.
>
OK, makes sense.
Colin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists