Hi Andre,
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Andre Guedes <andre.guedes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ulisses,
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Ulisses Furquim <ulisses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Andre,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Andre Guedes
>> <andre.guedes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi Ulisses,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Ulisses Furquim <ulisses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Andre Guedes
>>>> <andre.guedes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Lizardo,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Anderson Lizardo
>>>>> <anderson.lizardo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Andre,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Andre Guedes <aguedespe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
>>>>>>> index 6808069..3933ccd 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_event.c
>>>>>>> @@ -3255,12 +3255,10 @@ static inline void hci_le_adv_report_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>>>>>> void *ptr = &skb->data[1];
>>>>>>> s8 rssi;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - hci_dev_lock(hdev);
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So there is no need to lock hdev between the hci_add_adv_entry() and
>>>>>> mgmt_device_found() calls? This looks different from what is done for
>>>>>> BR/EDR for the inquiry cache.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, mgmt_device_found() does not require locking hdev->lock.
>>>>
>>>> We could then move the lock and unlock calls to inside the loop. But
>>>> as we might have more than one call to hci_add_adv_entry() it'd be
>>>> good to lock and unlock only once, no? Any problems I don't see?
>>>
>>> Yes, that's right. For this particular case, it may be better to lock
>>> hdev outside while() and call the thread-unsafe version here.
>>>
>>> This way, it may be better we just drop patches 02/03 and 03/03.
>>>
>>>>>>> while (num_reports--) {
>>>>>>> struct hci_ev_le_advertising_info *ev = ptr;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - __hci_add_adv_entry(hdev, ev);
>>>>>>> + hci_add_adv_entry(hdev, ev);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> rssi = ev->data[ev->length];
>>>>>>> mgmt_device_found(hdev, &ev->bdaddr, LE_LINK, ev->bdaddr_type,
>>>>>>> @@ -3268,8 +3266,6 @@ static inline void hci_le_adv_report_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ptr += sizeof(*ev) + ev->length + 1;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> - hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> static inline void hci_le_ltk_request_evt(struct hci_dev *hdev,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 1.7.9
>>>>
>>>> While I don't see anything wrong with your changes I don't think we
>>>> really need it. All the other functions that need to be called with
>>>> hdev->lock held don't have "__" prefix so it'll be different than the
>>>> others. And you added 3 new locked functions but your last patch only
>>>> uses 2 of them and only in 2 places. Unless I'm missing something here
>>>> we don't really need this refactoring at all. Do you have any other
>>>> reason to do that? Are you gonna use those functions in other
>>>> patchset?
>>>
>>> Yes, some other functions don't have the prefix "__" and that fact
>>> makes a bit painful and error-prone since we always have to dig in
>>> the "call chain" to know if we need to hold hdev->lock or not.
>>> Prefixing a function with "__" is just a standard way to indicate
>>> that.
>>
>> I understand that. I just don't know if Marcel will want to change
>> them all to have "__" prefixes, though. Having only one subset with
>> this prefix can make things even more confusing, don't you agree?
>
> Yes, this is pretty much an RFC series, I just realized I missed
> changing the --subject-prefix.
>
>> And have you been working with these functions or is this just a
>> cleanup you thought it'd be good to do?
>
> Just a cleanup.
Ok, then it's really up to Marcel to accept the addition of prefixes
or not. I'd leave it without the prefix for consistency.
Regards,
--
Ulisses Furquim
ProFUSION embedded systems
http://profusion.mobi
Mobile: +55 19 9250 0942
Skype: ulissesffs
--
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
