* Gustavo F. Padovan <padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-11-05 10:37:11 -0400]:
> Hi Ville,
>
> * Ville Tervo <ville.tervo@xxxxxxxxx> [2010-11-05 15:49:35 +0200]:
>
> > 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.
I figured out that we need write_lock_bh() here, because set the psm and
sport is like a new element to the list. l2cap_get_sock_by_addr()
searches for either psm or sport.
I'm also dropping the option to use RCU on the bt_sk_list(), It does not
fit on our case. We can't have anyone writing the list while we are
reading it.
--
Gustavo F. Padovan
http://profusion.mobi
--
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
