Hi,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012, Johan Hedberg wrote:
> > > > The locking doesn't look right to me above. hci_do_inquiry should be
> > > > called with the lock held. I think it might be simpler if you make
> > > > mgmt_interleaved_discovery() require the caller to hold the lock.
> > >
> > > Yes, you're right. I just realized hci_do_inquiry now calls inquiry_
> > > cache_flush which requires hdev->lock held. I'll fix this too. Thanks.
> >
> > please keep the lock inside mgmt_interleaved_discovery() for now. We
> > have enough locking crazy. I don't wanna add to it by making the caller
> > deal with it right now.
>
> The calling code looks like this:
>
> +
> + if (hdev->discovery.type == DISCOV_TYPE_INTERLEAVED) {
> + mgmt_interleaved_discovery(hdev);
> + } else {
> + hci_dev_lock(hdev);
> + hci_discovery_set_state(hdev, DISCOVERY_STOPPED);
> + hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
> + }
>
> I was thinking that if mgmt_interleaved_discovery required the lock to
> be held this code would become simpler:
>
> hci_dev_lock(hdev);
>
> if (hdev->discovery.type == DISCOV_TYPE_INTERLEAVED)
> mgmt_interleaved_discovery(hdev);
> else
> hci_discovery_set_state(hdev, DISCOVERY_STOPPED);
>
> hci_dev_unlock(hdev);
Furthermore, almost all calls from hci_core.c or hci_event.c into mgmt.c
(that pass hdev as a parameter) have hdev locked so this would just be
maintaining consistency.
Johan
--
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
