Gustavo -
On Thu, 24 May 2012, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
Hi Andrei,
* Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> [2012-05-24 11:26:04 +0300]:
Hi Gustavo,
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 04:00:16AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
- lock_sock(sk);
- __l2cap_state_change(chan, BT_DISCONN);
- __l2cap_chan_set_err(chan, err);
- release_sock(sk);
+ l2cap_state_change(chan, BT_DISCONN);
+ if(chan->ops->set_err)
+ chan->ops->set_err(chan->data, err);
I do not know can it be done somehow better, currently we lock and unlock
sockets for each operation.
I'm having trouble to get your point, could you please explain?
What I see is that the lock used to be acquired once, with both
state_change and set_err happening while locked. With this change,
the lock is acquired twice, once for state_change and once for
set_err. I'm not sure it's good to release the lock between
state_change and set_err.
--
Mat Martineau
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
--
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
