Hi, On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 10:18:07AM -0700, Mat Martineau wrote: > >>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. Maybe we add parameter err to l2cap_state_change and if set set error. Then we do not lock/unlock for each operation. 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
