Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 19 February 2014 16:10, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> HTT Rx endpoint processes both frame rx >>> indications and frame tx completion indications. >>> >>> Those completions typically come in batches and >>> may be mixed so it makes sense to defer processing >>> hoping to get a bunch of them and take advantage >>> of hot caches. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> [...] >> >>> @@ -270,7 +274,7 @@ static inline struct sk_buff *ath10k_htt_rx_netbuf_pop(struct ath10k_htt *htt) >>> int idx; >>> struct sk_buff *msdu; >>> >>> - spin_lock_bh(&htt->rx_ring.lock); >>> + lockdep_assert_held(&htt->rx_ring.lock); >> >> There are some locking changes which I think would be better to have in >> a separate patch. > > I don't think it makes much sense. It seems silly to move a few lines > in one patch to move some of those lines again in another one. I'm not really getting your point here. Moving things back and forth would not make any sense, but that's not what I was asking either. I noticed that you were taking locks in a larger scope (and earlier) than before. I was just thinking would it be possible to make that locking changes in a separate patch, that way it would be easier to bisect regressions if/when they show up. -- Kalle Valo -- 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
