On 09/29/2014 01:21 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 09/24/2014 12:44 AM, Michal Kazior wrote:
>>> On 23 September 2014 23:17, <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> +void ath10k_get_et_stats(struct ieee80211_hw *hw,
>>>> + struct ieee80211_vif *vif,
>>>> + struct ethtool_stats *stats, u64 *data)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct ath10k *ar = hw->priv;
>>>> + int i = 0;
>>>> + struct ath10k_target_stats *fw_stats;
>>>> +
>>>> + fw_stats = &ar->debug.target_stats;
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_lock(&ar->conf_mutex);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ar->state == ATH10K_STATE_ON)
>>>> + ath10k_refresh_peer_stats(ar);
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_unlock(&ar->conf_mutex);
>>>
>>> Just for correctness sake - it's probably a good idea to
>>> mutex_unlock() at the end (i.e. after spin_unlock_bh()) to make sure
>>> the stats are for this particular request. With your patch there's a
>>> very slight chance that, e.g. fw_stats debug file is being read at the
>>> same time and it updates fw stats between the above mutex_unlock() and
>>> following spin_lock_bh().
>>
>> That makes no difference at all to the user though, and it is one less
>> set of nested locks to worry about.
>
> I still do not want to have known races, especially when it's so easy to
> fix. The ethtool patches patches conflict with Michal's fw_stats fixes.
> Let me take the ethtool patches so that I can rebase them, fix this race
> and do some other small changes as well. I'll send v2 soon.
Your v2 patches are fine with me.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
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
