On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 15:21:00 +0200 Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 15:19 +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > On Wed, 06 Sep 2017 14:48:35 +0200 > > Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I'll look in a bit - but > > > > > > > + mutex_unlock(&sta->ampdu_mlme.mtx); > > > > ___ieee80211_stop_rx_ba_session( > > > > sta, tid, WLAN_BACK_RECIPIENT, > > > > WLAN_REASON_QSTA_TIMEOUT, > > > > true); > > > > > > This already has three underscores so shouldn't drop. > > > > Right, of course. > > > > > [...] > > > > + mutex_unlock(&sta->ampdu_mlme.mtx); > > > > __ieee80211_start_rx_ba_session(sta, 0, > > > > 0, > > > > 0, 1, tid, > > > > > > maybe this one needs a ___ version then? > > > > Either that, or as it's a single call, perhaps just the following? > > Matter of taste I guess... > > I don't think it's a matter of taste - for me, in principle, dropping > locks for small sections of code where the larger section holds it is a > bug waiting to happen. It may (may, I don't even know) be OK here, but > in general it's something to avoid. Yes, that was based on the assumption that the initial part of __ieee80211_start_rx_ba_session() can't really affect the AMPDU state-machine in any way. But sure, one small change there in the future and the assumption doesn't hold anymore. -- Stefano
