On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:37:01PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 03:26:25PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 16:16, Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/txrx.c > > b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/txrx.c > > > index cda164f6e9f6..1d3b2d2c3fee 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/txrx.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath10k/txrx.c > > > @@ -95,6 +95,9 @@ int ath10k_txrx_tx_unref(struct ath10k_htt *htt, > > > wake_up(&htt->empty_tx_wq); > > > spin_unlock_bh(&htt->tx_lock); > > > > > + if (htt->num_pending_tx <= 3 && !list_empty(&ar->txqs)) > > > + ath10k_mac_tx_push_pending(ar); > > > + > > > > Just sanity checking - what's protecting htt->num_pending_tx? or is it > > serialised some other way? [...] > I can't see that any of the examples applies, but let's add READ_ONCE(), > to make sure that the compiler doesn't try to optimize this. Couldn't you just move the num_pending_tx read inside tx_lock which is 2 lines above? I think all the other manipulations are protected by tx_lock. -- Bob Copeland %% https://bobcopeland.com/
