Hi Bing,
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:37:43AM -0700, Bing Zhao wrote:
>
[snip]
> > How should I proceed? Can I reorder patches to match my
> > development cycle, which is? 2-5;1;6 or more verbosely
> > cleanup first followed by bug fix and proper locking last
> You can separate 6 patches into two patch sets.
> 1-3 fix the bug and clean up.
> 4-6 implement ra list rotation and proper locking.
I reworked the patchset and split into two.
set 1:
1/4 mwifiex: rework round robin scheduling of bss nodes.
2/4 mwifiex: replace ra_list_curr by list rotation.
3/4 mwifiex: bug: hold proper locks when accessing ra_list / bss_prio lists.
4/4 mwifiex: bug: remove NO_PKT_PRIO_TID.
3/4 previous 6/6 is bugfix now:
...
Another race condition exists, if a new highest priority
packet is added. If concurrently a packet is dequeued, the newly
set max prio will be overwritten with the value of the dequeued
packet. This can occur, because selecting a packet and modifying
the max prio is not atomic. This results in an infinite loop
unless, a new packet is added that has at least the priority of
the hidden packet.
...
set 2:
1/2 mwifiex: remove unused tid_tbl_lock from mwifiex_tid_tbl.
2/2 mwifiex: bug: wrong list in list_empty check.
Patch set 2 can be delayed, but since hard to read code probably
introduced all the problems, I suggest to apply it promptly.
It simplifies the code a lot.
>
> We will run stress tests against 4-6.
I'm here at 4+ days, still running. This exceeds all previous
tests on my particular setup.
>
> Thanks,
> Bing
rgds,
Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
