<Ajay.Kathat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> @@ -781,13 +776,15 @@ static int wilc_mac_close(struct net_device *ndev)
>>> if (vif->ndev) {
>>> netif_stop_queue(vif->ndev);
>>>
>>> + if (wl->open_ifcs == 0)
>>> + wl->close = 1;
>>> +
>>
>> wl-close is an int, I wonder if it's racy to int as a flag like this? In
>> cases like this I usually use set_bit() & co because those guarantee
>> atomicity, though don't know if that's overkill.
>>
>
> I think it's a good idea to use an atomic operation but I am not sure if
> using atomic for 'wl->close' will have much impact. For instance, if any
> new work gets added to the workqueue before the 'wl->close=1' is fully
> completed, then that work would get executed as normal.
Sure, this is most likely a small race condition. But still a race.
> However, I feel it's safe to define 'wl->close' as atomic_t type. I will
> prepare the conversion patch and will try to include it along with the
> updated version of this patch.
Why atomic_t? You only use values 0 and 1 so test_bit() and set_bit()
sounds more approriate to me.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
