merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> On 2018-11-06 14:28, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>>
>>> On 2018-11-06 12:30, Kalle Valo wrote:
>>>> Maya Erez <merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Ahmad Masri <amasri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Separate sending command to the fw from the event handling
>>>>> function to
>>>>> simplify the disconnect flow and track the from_event flag
>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Masri <amasri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maya Erez <merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> +static int wil_disconnect_cid(struct wil6210_vif *vif, int cid,
>>>>> + u16 reason_code)
>>>>> +__acquires(&sta->tid_rx_lock) __releases(&sta->tid_rx_lock)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct wil6210_priv *wil = vif_to_wil(vif);
>>>>> + struct wireless_dev *wdev = vif_to_wdev(vif);
>>>>> + struct wil_sta_info *sta = &wil->sta[cid];
>>>>> + bool del_sta = false;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + might_sleep();
>>>>> + wil_dbg_misc(wil, "disconnect_cid: CID %d, MID %d, status %d\n",
>>>>> + cid, sta->mid, sta->status);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (sta->status == wil_sta_unused)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (vif->mid != sta->mid) {
>>>>> + wil_err(wil, "STA MID mismatch with VIF MID(%d)\n", vif->mid);
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* inform lower layers */
>>>>> + if (wdev->iftype == NL80211_IFTYPE_AP && disable_ap_sme)
>>>>> + del_sta = true;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* disconnect by sending command disconnect/del_sta and wait
>>>>> + * synchronously for WMI_DISCONNECT_EVENTID event.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + return wmi_disconnect_sta(vif, sta->addr, reason_code, del_sta);
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> I don't get use of __acquires() and __releases() in this function. I
>>>> see
>>>> similar pattern already in wil6210 but care to explain why this is
>>>> needed? I don't see the function even accessing tid_rx_lock so I'm
>>>> very
>>>> confused.
>>>
>>> I assume it is a copy / paste leftover that we missed in the code
>>> review. We will remove it.
>>
>> Actually I already removed the annotations from the pending branch and
>> no need to resend, it's faster that way. Please double check if you
>> can,
>> unfortunately I cannot provide a direct link cgit doesn't show the new
>> commit yet.
>
> In such a case you can go ahead and apply the patches without
> "wil6210: ignore HALP ICR if already handled". I'll upstream its fixed
> version
> in the next set of wil6210 patches.
Ok, I dropped "wil6210: ignore HALP ICR if already handled" and I'm
planning to apply the rest.
--
Kalle Valo
