On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 05:34:34PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:18:38 +0200 > > > I guess some additional synchronization will be added yet to prevent > > parallel freeze and especially unfreeze. > > Yes, that could be a problem. Using test_and_set_bit() can > guard the freezing sequence itself, but it won't handle > letting two threads of control freeze and unfreeze safely > without a reference count. > > We want this thing to be able to be used flexbly, which means > we can't just assume that this is a short code sequence and > the unfreeze will come quickly. That pretty much rules > out using a new lock around the operation or anything > like that. > > So I guess we could replace the state bit with a reference > count. It doesn't even need to be atomic since it is set > and tested under dev_queue->_xmit_lock Looks like enough to me. (Probably it could even share space with the state.) Jarek P. -- 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
