[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <098e2983ac299cb3b33bd0a8e33aaab8d6235909.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 20:58:25 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stanislaw Gruszka <stf_xl@...pl>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>,
Gregory Greenman <gregory.greenman@...el.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Miri Korenblit <miriam.rachel.korenblit@...el.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mirsad Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org>,
Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/34] wifi: intel: use atomic find_bit() API where
appropriate
On Sat, 2023-11-18 at 07:50 -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> iwlegacy and iwlwifi code opencodes atomic bit allocation/traversing by
> using loops.
That's really just due to being lazy though, it could use a non-atomic
__test_and_set_bit() would be just fine in all of this, there's always a
mutex held around it that protects the data.
Not that it means that the helper is _wrong_, it's just unnecessary, and
you don't have non-atomic versions of these, do you?
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists