On 18 March 2014 17:57, Eliad Peller <eliad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Use a separate function to look for reservation
>> chanctx. For multi-interface/channel reservation
>> search sematics differ slightly.
>>
>> The new routine allows reservations to be merged
>> with chanctx that are already reserved by other
>> interface(s).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
> [...]
>
>> +static const struct cfg80211_chan_def *
>> +ieee80211_chanctx_non_reserved_chandef(struct ieee80211_local *local,
>> + struct ieee80211_chanctx *ctx,
>> + const struct cfg80211_chan_def *compat)
>> +{
>> + struct ieee80211_sub_if_data *sdata;
>> +
>> + lockdep_assert_held(&local->chanctx_mtx);
>> +
>> + list_for_each_entry(sdata, &ctx->assigned_vifs,
>> + assigned_chanctx_list) {
>> + if (rcu_access_pointer(sdata->reserved_chanctx) != NULL)
>> + continue;
> this is not rcu pointer...
Good catch, thanks! I must've missed this while rebasing.
>> +static bool
>> +ieee80211_chanctx_can_reserve_chandef(struct ieee80211_local *local,
>> + struct ieee80211_chanctx *ctx,
>> + const struct cfg80211_chan_def *def)
>> +{
>> + lockdep_assert_held(&local->chanctx_mtx);
>> +
>> + if (ieee80211_chanctx_combined_chandef(local, ctx, NULL) &&
>> + ieee80211_chanctx_combined_chandef(local, ctx, def))
>> + return true;
>> +
> what's the reason for calling it with NULL?
>
>> + if (!list_empty(&ctx->reserved_vifs) &&
>> + ieee80211_chanctx_reserved_chandef(local, ctx, NULL) &&
>> + ieee80211_chanctx_reserved_chandef(local, ctx, def))
>> + return true;
> and this seems redundant as _combined_chandef() should already check for it?
Hmm, good point. I'll get rid of these redundant checks.
Michał
--
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
