Hi Ulisses, On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:54:44PM -0200, Ulisses Furquim wrote: > Hi Andrei, > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Andrei, > > > >> Usage of RCU list looks not reasonalbe for a number of reasons: > >> our code sleep and we have to use socket spinlocks, some parts > >> of code are updaters thus we need to use mutexes anyway. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > >> 1 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > > > I am fine with this, but I wanna get an ack from Ulisses as well. > > Please, refer to my previous review because it seems you haven't > changed anything at all. For instance, l2cap_disconnect_rsp() is still those changes are in other patch: [RFCv3 09/16] Bluetooth: Use chan lock in L2CAP sig commands I was thinking that this patch change RCU to mutex chan list locks and the changes which change socket lock to chan lock are different. > missing an unlock of chan_lock and I see no changes to l2cap_sock.c > which are needed. Moreover, you need to use the unlocked versions of > the chan lookup functions and check if we still need the locked ones. I will check need for locking function but at least compiler did not warn me about unused function. Best regards Andrei Emeltchenko -- 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
