Hi Gustavo,
> > On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 04:03:12PM +0100, ext Gustavo F. Padovan wrote:
> > > It also have to change the name of the function to
> > > l2cap_get_sock_by_addr() because we do hold the lock inside it now.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo F. Padovan <padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > net/bluetooth/l2cap.c | 17 ++++++-----------
> > > 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c
> > > index 6f931cc..3d48867 100644
> > > --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c
> > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap.c
> > > @@ -728,15 +728,18 @@ static inline void l2cap_chan_add(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct sock *sk, stru
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* ---- Socket interface ---- */
> > > -static struct sock *__l2cap_get_sock_by_addr(__le16 psm, bdaddr_t *src)
> > > +static struct sock *l2cap_get_sock_by_addr(__le16 psm, bdaddr_t *src)
> > > {
> > > struct sock *sk;
> > > struct hlist_node *node;
> > > +
> > > + write_lock_bh(&l2cap_sk_list.lock);
> >
> > Code is only reading so read_lock_bh would be enough?
>
> Sure, I didn't looked to that, I just keept the same code that we were
> using before. I'll fix it.
we might also not just bother with read/write locks. Since they are not
always the right thing to do. In a lot of cases a pure spinlock is just
better. And in case of Bluetooth I think we would be just fine with
using a pure spinlock. You might run some tests with this.
Regards
Marcel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
