Hi Luiz,
On Tue, 2021-11-09 at 15:13 -0800, Luiz Augusto von Dentz wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 2:35 PM Benjamin Berg <benjamin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > From: Benjamin Berg <bberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Call the hci_tx_error handler in case a frame cannot be send.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Berg <bberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/bluetooth/hci_core.c | 2 ++
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > index bbb35188e41f..8664c2fbacdb 100644
> > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_core.c
> > @@ -4200,6 +4200,8 @@ static void hci_send_frame(struct hci_dev *hdev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > if (err < 0) {
> > bt_dev_err(hdev, "sending frame failed (%d)", err);
> > kfree_skb(skb);
> > +
> > + hci_tx_error(hdev, -err);
>
> Either we do this here by calling directly hci_cmd_sync_cancel like I
> suggested previously or perhaps we should have the error returned by
> hci_send_frame otherwise the current thread still has to wait to get
> the error from req_result which perhaps is not necessary if we already
> got a proper error here just return it so the thread doesn't even need
> to sleep.
Yes, returning the error is a good idea.
I think that means doing the cancellation from hci_cmd_work. As I
understand it, the frame is sent from the main workqueue so we are not
avoiding the context switches for now. But that may well change in the
future.
Benjamin
> > }
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.31.1
> >
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
