Hi Ulisses, On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:24:57PM -0200, Ulisses Furquim wrote: > Hi Andrei, > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Emeltchenko Andrei > <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > 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> > > No need to lock and unlock conn->chan_lock in l2cap_disconnect_rsp()? > This change from RCU to mutexes really should be just one commit IMO. I try to add chunks which are not in different patches but then this patch would several hundreds lines long. If this OK I just merge them. > This series is starting to get all confused. The change to RCU was > only one commit so it should be possible to do the "revert" without > breaking anything. "Anything" is already broken in a sense that RCU updaters are not protected at all. So the change does not make it more or less broken. 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
