On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 13:20 -0700, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I believe this is more correct, though it did not fix the
> memory leak I was chasing when I found this code.
That description could use some work :-)
> + spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
> +
> tid_tx = sta->ampdu_mlme.tid_start_tx[tid];
> if (tid_tx) {
> /*
> * Assign it over to the normal tid_tx array
> * where it "goes live".
> */
> - spin_lock_bh(&sta->lock);
>
> sta->ampdu_mlme.tid_start_tx[tid] = NULL;
> /* could there be a race? */
> @@ -301,6 +302,8 @@ void ieee80211_ba_session_work(struct work_struct *work)
>
> ieee80211_tx_ba_session_handle_start(sta, tid);
> continue;
> + } else {
> + spin_unlock_bh(&sta->lock);
> }
>
You could just put the unlock after the if block, given the continue in
it, I think I'd prefer that.
> tid_tx = rcu_dereference_protected_tid_tx(sta, tid);
> diff --git a/net/mac80211/sta_info.h b/net/mac80211/sta_info.h
> index c509423..0f85418 100644
> --- a/net/mac80211/sta_info.h
> +++ b/net/mac80211/sta_info.h
> @@ -204,6 +204,7 @@ struct tid_ampdu_rx {
> * driver requested to close until the work for it runs
> * @mtx: mutex to protect all TX data (except non-NULL assignments
> * to tid_tx[idx], which are protected by the sta spinlock)
> + * tid_start_tx is also protected by sta->lock.
That should be a tab.
johannes
--
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
