Hi Andrei, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Emeltchenko Andrei <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ulisses, > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:06:10PM -0300, Ulisses Furquim wrote: > ... >> Yes, I do think they belong together. And please, check l2cap_sock.c >> where l2cap_chan_close() seems to be called without locking >> conn->chan_lock in l2cap_sock_shutdown(). > > In that context we do not always have l2cap_conn so maybe we return > chan list lock to chan_del or invent unlocked chan_del / chan_close? We don't have l2cap_conn? So are we already on conn->chan_l list or not? Maybe it's better to check that instead of changing everything now. > So far the easiest way would be first solution. > >> And please remove the bogus >> comment below from l2cap_conn_start, ok? > > I believe this is removed in later patches. If so, then ok, thanks. 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
